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 →

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Naresh Jindal

2015 (10) TMI 401 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Addition on account of advance against order - nexus between sending of money as against sale was not established and no service was rendered by the foreign buyer/receiver of the money and that too without deduction of tax at source as required under section 40(a) - ITAT deleted addition - Held that:- The loss has been caused to the appellant due to the fraud which he fell victim to in the course of his business. The Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pukhrajwati Bubber [2006 (11) TMI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same has to be allowed as a deduction. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case and also the ratio of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Pukhraj Wati Bubber (supra) the loss so incurred is held to be an allowable business loss. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is therefore deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

TDS liability on forfeiture of advance security against rent - Addition on account of payment of rent made in contrav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

able security, as per circular, he was not supposed to deduct the tax at source. The security was paid in order to cover such type of unforeseen circumstances. The landlord has forfeited it and adjusted it towards the rent. Thus, it was a revenue expenditure in the hands of the assessee and it did not deserve to be disallowed. We allow this ground of appeal and delete the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.185 of 2015 (O&M) - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 45,03,927/- made by the AO on account of advance against order when the nexus between sending of money as against sale was not established and no service was rendered by the foreign buyer/receiver of the money and that too without deduction of tax at source as required under section 40(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and in the ci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessment year 2007-08, he filed his return on 31.10.2007 declaring total Income at nil. After hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2009. He determined the taxable Income of the assessee at ₹ 52,64,659/-. The following additions/disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer:- i) Addition on account of advance against order Rs.45,03,927/- ii) isallowance under section 40(a)(ia) ₹ 5,00,000/- iii) Addition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2 to 6. Before the Tribunal, the revenue challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 45,03,927/- at Sr.No.1 whereas the assessee challenged confirmation of additions by the CIT(A) at Sr.Nos. 2 to 6. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.5.2012, Annexure A.III dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The following two additions made by the Assessing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the exporters since 1997. M/s Indosun Global was established by him during previous year 2005-06 for carrying out the export business of home furnishing items and had obtained EC Code number for the said purpose. The assessee had become member of 'Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts'. The assessee had paid the amount of ₹ 45,03,927/- towards Attorney fees, Bid security amount, EU taxation and Locked Fund Insurance. The aforesaid amount was transferred on various dates fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ittances as the amount in question was towards the attorney fees, taxation etc. which is not taxable as per the provisions of the Act. It has been stated that the security amount was refundable as per the contract and thus no income had arisen to the beneficiary. Similarly, in the case of locked fund insurance the funds were transferred for insurance policy and thus there was no income to the beneficiary. In case of EU taxation, the funds were transferred to EU taxation and again there was no in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant, no TOS was required as the beneficiary does not have permanent establishment in India. Therefore, in view of the above submission of the appellant, the contention of the Assessing Officer that tax should have been deducted at source is also held to be not supported by facts. 4.12 Thus, the various reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow the loss incurred by the appellant due to the sham order do not have any merit. The issue is whether there was any such transaction in w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ils exchanged between the appellant and the United National Children Fund, the alleged prospective buyer indicate that such transaction took place. The appellant has also placed on record the newspaper cutting supporting his case that he was the victim of the fraud. After appraising the varied documentary evidence, it is held that the appellant was victim of fraudulent transaction. Having held so now the question is whether the loss arising due to the fraud as mentioned above is a business loss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aused due to embezzlement observed as under:- 'The liability to tax is on profits or gains of business computed in accordance with sections 30 to 43 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Though there is no provision for allowing deduction of a trading loss on account of embezzlement, section 37 of the Act provides for any expenditure for the purpose of business and there has to be nexus between the business operation and the loss. If the loss was directly connected with the busi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

indings. In the absence of any illegality or perversity demonstrated by learned counsel for the revenue, no legal issue arises for consideration in this Court. 7. Next taking up the issue of ₹ 5,00,000/- disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Tribunal had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). It was recorded that the security deposit was refundable and therefore, in view of circular, no tax at source was deductible. However, the landlord had later on adju .....

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