Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 177 - AT - Income TaxSecurity deposits paid to Electricity Authorities and Sales tax Authorities - CIT(A) deleted the addition - whether advance given is capital in nature and the same cannot be claimed as bad debt as per the provisions of sec. 36(2) r.w.S 36(1)(vii)? - Held that:- It appears that the assessee has transferred the factory premises along with the electricity connection. Therefore, no separate claim of business loss on account of security deposit of electricity connection is allowable when the same is transferred along with the factory premises Similarly, the deposit with the Sales Tax Department cannot be treated as irrecoverable amount. Merely because the assessee decided to written–off these amounts in the books of account would not automatically become an allowable deduction being business loss. We further note that for the assessment year 2007–08, this claim of the assessee has been disallowed by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has not filed any appeal against the disallowance made by the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the learned CIT(A) qua this issue is set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored. - Decided in favour of revenue. Applicability of section 50C, in respect of the sale of lease hold property - CIT (A) treating the value of the property at ₹ 1,40,00,0001- instead of at its stamp value of ₹ 3,07,71,0001-, as done by the AO - the lease hold rights cannot be equated with the ownership of the land and, therefore, the deemed provisions of section 50C, cannot be applied in case of transfer of lease hold rights as per assesse - Held that:- There is no dispute that what is transferred by the assessee is the lease hold property and, therefore, until and unless the property is converted into free hold the lessee holds only lease hold rights over the property. See ITO v/s Pradeep Steel Re–rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (7) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Atul G. Pauranik v/s ITO [2011 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT, Mumbai] wherein held since the section 27(iiib) has not been extended to the computation of capital gains under section 45 and is limited to the computation of the income under the head "Income from house property", the conclusion of the CIT(A) that section 50C cannot be invoked where leasehold rights in land or building are transferred, seems to us, to be correct. - Decided against revenue. Advance written–off in respect of old / ex–employees balance - CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee - Held that:- CIT(A) has correctly allowed the claim of the assessee by following the orders of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in IBM World Trade Corporation v/s CIT, [1988 (12) TMI 23 - BOMBAY High Court]. The amount was paid for procuring the accommodation for the employees who have already left the services of the assessee, therefore, now this amount has become irrecoverable and is allowable deduction as business loss.- Decided in favour of assesse. Deduction on account of written–off amount being deposit made to EGIL - Held that:- The assessee has claimed deduction of ₹ 3,75,880, written–off on account of deposit made for an old premises by EGIL which were merged with the assessee and subsequently the amount was identified as irrecoverable after the merger - Decided in favour of assesse.
|