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 ITO, Ward-6 (4) , Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Kamal Process

Addition made u/s.2(22)(e) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Not inclined to agree with the quantum of addition made by the Id.A.O. He has taken accumulated profits of M/s. K.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.3.2009. Perusal of copy of account of M/s. K.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the appellant i.e. M/s. Kamal Process reveals that the appellant has received the last installment of ₹ 13,00,000/- on 23.10.2008. As per the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) the accumulated profits fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. was having accumulated profit of ₹ 37,613/- at the end of October, 2008. This way the accumulated profit as on 23.10.08 can at the most be taken at ₹ 37,613/-. In view of above facts, I hold that M/s. K.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. was having accumulated profit of ₹ 37,613/- at the date of payment of loan of ₹ 13,00,000/- on 23.10.2008 and accumulated profits to the extent of ₹ 37,613/- can only be taxed as per the provisions of sec.2(22)(e). Accordi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dvances from customers and ₹ 15,75,923/- as unpaid expense] during the year under consideration. This finding of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue.

Rejection of book of account - Held that:- CIT(A) has not upheld the book of account on the ground that during the course of assessment proceedin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of CIT vs. Vikram Plastic (1998 (8) TMI 43 - GUJARAT High Court). The AO has proceeded to reject the book of accounts on the ground that the yield shown by the assessee was not correct since in the subsequent year, the assessee has shown yield at 96.63% for AY 2010-11. We find that the AO has noted the fact that the certificate dated 12/11/2011 was given to the assessee by one Shri G.G.Shroff, B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. Tech. (Bom.). The assessee has also enclosed the test report dated 8/12/2011 of Ah .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

available on records indicate that the appellant manufactured 7,77,184 mtrs of cloth on his own account. This cloth was sold for a sale consideration of ₹ 1,86,31,031/-. This way the average selling price of cloth manufactured by the appellant works out to ₹ 23.96 per meter (18631031 / 777184). Thus the cost of production of cloth cannot be more than ₹ 23.96 per meter. It is seen that the A.O. has taken cost of production at ₹ 17,39,12,483 [cost of raw material of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst revenue.

Addition made on account of fall in G.P. Ratio - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- AO himself has stated in his order that since the addition in respect of suppression of production and disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act has been made, therefore the ground raised is ill-conceived. We find that the AO, however, proceeded to make the addition of ₹ 24,33,112/- and decided not to make separate addition in respect of fall in GP rate. Therefore, 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

22/10/2012 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- i) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on f acts in deleting the addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1,88,065/-. ii) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,08,041/- made out of interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. iii) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tances of the case, the ld.Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. vii) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 30/12/2011, ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 2,25,678/- made on account of deemed dividend, deleted the addition of ₹ 1,88,065/-, deleted disallowance of interest of ₹ 3,08,041/- and also deleted the addition of suppression of production of ₹ 33,59,168/-. The ld.CIT(A) also held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 3. First ground of appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,88,065/-. The ld.Sr.DR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given finding on fact in para-3.2 of his order as under:- 3.2 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is seen that the A.O. had discussed in detail about the basic conditions as laid down u/s.2(22)(e) and how the same are fulfilled in the case of the appellant. Such discussion has been made by the A.O. in para 3.2 of the assessment order. During the appellate proceedings the appellant contended that lending money was a substantial part o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to file documentary evidence to prove that M/s. K.V. Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd. had given advance to the appellant in the ordinary course of business or whether giving advance was substantial part of its business. In view of above, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the Id. A.O. that provisions of sec.2(22)(e) are attracted in the case of the appellant. However, I am not inclined to agree with the quantum of addition made by the Id.A.O. He has taken accumulated profits of M/s. K.V. Fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

started its business from 1.10.2008. During the year under consideration M/s. K.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. has earned a profit of ₹ 2,25,678/-. This way it can be said that M/s. K.V. Fashions has earned a monthly profit of ₹ 37,613/- (Rs.2,25,678 / 6). In view of these facts, it can be said that M/s. K.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. was having accumulated profit of ₹ 37,613/- at the end of October, 2008. This way the accumulated profit as on 23.10.08 can at the most be taken at ₹ 37,61 .....

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 aforesaid finding on fact of the ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.1 of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 5. Second ground of appeal is against deletion of addition of ₹ 3,08,041/-. The ld.Sr.DR relied on the order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee is ₹ 3,08,041/-. The assessee has given loans and advances of ₹ 1,17,30,982/-. 5.1. On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the finding of the AO is misplaced. She relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was having sufficient interest-free funds. The ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that it is evident from the finding of the AO that he has not established any nexus between the interest-bearing borrowings and 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

is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of Revenue s appeal is rejected. 7. Third ground of appeal is against rejection of book of account. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the books of account. The ld.Sr.DR submitted that the AO has observed that column No.9(b) & (c), the books of account ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 7.1. Therefore, the ld.Sr.DR submitted that the AO is justified in rejecting the book of account as the true profit could not be computed. 7.2. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee opposed the submissions of the ld.Sr.DR and placed reliance on the order of the ld.CIT(A). She submitted that due to nature of business, it was certified by the Auditor of the assessee that the maintenance of stock register was not possible. 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material availa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant. The ld.CIT(A) observed that the AO has not found any specific details either in the book of accounts or in the details furnished by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) relied on the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vikram Plastic (239 ITR 161-Guj.). The AO has proceeded to reject the book of accounts on the ground that the yield shown by the assessee was not correct since in the subsequent year, the assessee has shown yield at 96.63% for AY 2010-11. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal is rejected. 9. Fourth ground of appeal is against deletion of addition of ₹ 33,59,168/- made on account of suppression of production. The ld.Sr.DR relied on the order of AO. 9.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A). 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO made the addition on the basis that in the subsequent year, the yield was declared .....

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
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer



|| 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