Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Bank of India Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (1) , Mumbai

2015 (9) TMI 647 - ITAT MUMBAI

Treatment to Commission on share application made on behalf of PMS clients as income of the assessee - Held that:- There is uncontroverted finding in the assessment order as well as in the impugned order that even after set-aside proceedings, the assessee did not produce any evidence in support of its contention that the transaction and subscription was on account of PMS client account, thus, the addition was again made. Even, the submission of the assessee vide letter dated 23/06/2011 were cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

laim of proving that it was held as stock in trade. These investment were shown in the category of investment only in the balance sheet to comply with schedule-6 of the company Act. Thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee.

Disallowance of accrued interest on overdue lease rentals - Held that:- Totality of facts clearly indicates that even pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the assessee neither fil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13/09/2011 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The first ground raised by the assessee pertains to confirming in treating ₹ 36 lakhs on account of commission on share application made on behalf of PMS clients as income of the assessee. 2. During hearing, we have heard, Shri Rajnikant Chinayari, ld. counsel for the assessee and Shri Vivek Batra, ld. DR. The crux of arguments advanced on behalf of the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dence in support of its claim. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a finance company wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of India. HPCL was the client of the assessee under portfolio management scheme. The assessee received ₹ 20 crores on PMS account from Hindustan Petroleum known as PMS HP. Out of these funds, ₹ 2,50 lakhs was invested in private placement for subscribing the right shar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

while giving effect to ITAT s order, assessee has not produced any evidence in support of its contention that the transaction and the subscription was on account of PMS client, even during appellate proceedings no such evidence has been produced by the assessee, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. is confirmed and the ground of appeal is rejected. It is also noted that earlier, the matter travelled to the Tribunal, wherein, the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Pursu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d order) were considered and before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also no such evidence was produced. Even before us, no evidence was produced by the assessee, therefore, we have no option but to confirm the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), consequently, the stand of the ld. First Appellate Authority, on the issue in hand, is affirmed. 3. The next ground raised by the assessee pertains to disallowing the loss on revaluation of securities amounting .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by submitting that the assessee did not produce sufficient evidence before the Assessing Officer/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also before the Tribunal. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee claimed loss on valuation of securities/depreciation on investment amounting to ₹ 7,48,614/-. We find that pursuant to set-aside proceedings from the T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e reproducing hereunder the relevant finding recorded by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):- I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. Hon ble ITAT set aside the issue to the A.O. against the initial assessment order with a direction that the A.O. to find out whether the investment in securities is in the nature of investment or stock-in-trade. Whereas assessee could produce no other evidence before the A.O. to prove that it is stock-in-trade except that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the A.O. Hence, following the directions of Hon ble ITAT the A.O. has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. In result, the ground of appeal is rejected. There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the assessee could not produce any evidence for substantiating its claim of proving that it was held as stock in trade. These investment were shown in the category of investment only in the balance sheet to comply with schedule-6 of the company Act. Thus, we find no infirmity i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

realized. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Annamalai Finance Ltd. (2010) 319 ITR 196 (Mad.). On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that, as per Revenue, the assessee did not accounted for the interest on overdue rentals on accrual basis. The stand of the assessee is that there was no agreement for waiving of penal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version