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 →

Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Vice Versa

Non-refund of the advance amount - whether treated as a business loss? - Held that:- We hold that the assessee is at least very much entitled to claim deduction under section 28 of the Act regarding the above amount of ₹ 31 lakhs as business loss. We, thus, direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claimed deduction - Decided in favour of assessee

Unaccounted payment for purchase of shares - It was contended that the assessee had already offered this amount of ₹ 2.56 crore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ettled in the memorandum of understanding dated September 25, 2005, duly executed by the parties, there is no reason to doubt the claim of the assessee that ₹ 2.56 crores was returned back which was deposited back in the books and surrendered by the assessee as a part of the total surrender of ₹ 5.50 crores, especially when the abovenoted some material facts by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) mentioned above in paragraph 13.3 of the present order have not been disput .....

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:- The entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was solely based upon suspicion and surmises. The Assessing Officer has quoted the report of the Vigilance Bureau at pages 50 and 60 of his order revealing the facts that the report of the Vigilance Bureau relied on the contents of accounts was extracted from the pen drive recovered from Shri Chetan Gupta, wherein there was no mention anywhere in the accounts forwarded by the Vigilance Bureau about the name of the assessee or its director. Ev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee by the Assessing Officer before taking any action against the assessee despite the specific request by the assessee made on December 24, 2004. There was also no statement of confirmation from the alleged recipient or his son regarding the impugned amount. And above all in the case of the recipient, Shri Ravinder Singh, for the alleged bribe, the same has been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ultimately appr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee then such expense is allowable under section 37 of the Act. We also concur with the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that merely because any income had not been earned during the year directly from any partner activity, it cannot be said that the related expense is not expense for the business of the assessee. Whether the income has been earned or not and whether the ultimate benefit has accrued immediately or not, the expenses incurred shall be allowable if the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onate or disproportionate vis-a-vis the requirement of the business. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition in question. - Decided in favour of assessee - I. T. A. Nos. 4073 and 4147/Del/2013 - Dated:- 8-2-2016 - I. C. Sudhir (Judicial Member) And Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) For the Petitioner : S. K. Tulsiyan For the Respondent : Kartar Singh ORDER I. C. Sudhir (Judicial Member) 1. These are .....

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 the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating that the above amount of ₹ 2.56 crores represented the amount paid by the appellant in relation to the purchase of land at Punjab, which was received back, surrendered and offered for tax by the appellant during the course of search proceedings as part of the total undisclosed income of ₹ 5.50 crores. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on the facts 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

the very same amount, which is not permissible in law. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹ 31 lakhs under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash introduced in the books of account. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating that the above amount of ₹ 31 lakhs represents the cash received back fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te statement of Mr. Dutta, not tested by cross-examination, had no evidentiary value. 2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the aforesaid addition of ₹ 31 lakhs has resulted in double taxation of the very same amount, which is not permissible in law. 3. The Revenue, on the other hand, has impugned the first appellate order on the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income .....

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 circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 59,04,788 made by the Assessing Officer on account of brokerage and commission. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee-company incorporated on September 2, 1996, is carrying on the business mainly in real .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting that the land in question was valued at ₹ 12.25 crores. Earlier there was a proposal for outright purchase of the said land but, subsequently, there was negotiation of sharing of space after the development of commercial complex on the said land and, finally, PR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was taken over by the assessee and its promoters. 6. After analysing the seized papers and statements of the directors, the Assessing Officer held that the land in question at Batala Road, Amritsar, wo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against which parties are in appeal. 7. The assessee-company had surrendered an undisclosed income of ₹ 5 crores and also ₹ 50 lakhs being the cash seized on March 30, 2006, from the possession of the assessee's employees at the Bhopal airport. These amounts were surrendered as undisclosed income of the assessee. 8. The break-up of the undisclosed income submitted by the assessee is as follows : (i) Income earned in cash not accounted for ₹ 3,12,000 (ii) Miscellaneous inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch, the assessee in its return of income declared ₹ 19,77,97,633 wherein the above amount of ₹ 5.50 crores was included in schedule XIII to the profit and loss account filed, as miscellaneous income. Equivalent to the surrendered income, the assessee had introduced cash amounting to ₹ 5 crores in his books of account for the year under consideration. 10. The Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act has assessed the total income of the assessee- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(additional undisclosed income paid in cash out of books) (paragraph 4.2, pages 3-4 of the order) ₹ 31,00,000 (iii) Unaccounted cash paid to Mr. Arun Kapoor towards purchase of shares of M/s. PRIL (Amritsar Plot) (paragraph 4.3, pages 4 to 6 : no separate addition for ₹ 2.56 crores paragraph 4.4., pages 6 to 15 of the order) ₹ 12,19,00,000 (iv) Unaccounted expenditure in Ludhiana City Centre (paragraph 4.5, pages 15 to 25) ₹ 21,62,00,000 (v) Brokerage and commission paid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6.3, pages 36-37) ₹ 31,00,000 (iii) Unaccounted cash received back from Arun Kapoor, the erstwhile director of M/s. PRIL paid towards purchase of shares of M/s. PRIL (Amritsar Plot) under section 68 of the Act. (paragraph 4.11, pages 29 to 31) ₹ 2,56,00,000 (iv) Unaccounted payment in Ludhiana City Centre (paragraph 7.3, pages 55 to 57) Rs. Nil (v) Brokerage and commission paid on leased properties (paragraph 8.3, page 62) Rs. Nil (vi) Late payment of TDS (paragraph 9.3, page 64) Rs. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mar Dutta and an advance of ₹ 31 lakhs was made by the assessee to him. On the basis of pages 54 and 55 of annexure A4 found during the course of search which were cash receipts issued by Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutta against the said land dealing, the Assessing Officer has made this addition while rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the said advance of ₹ 30 lakhs was returned to the assessee since the dealing could not reach finality. The learned Commissioner of Income- tax (App .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on April 7, 2005, and April 11, 2005. Shri Arun Nayyar, the director of the assessee-company, therefore, when questioned on the said pages found during the search proceedings, vide answer to question No. 11 (page 100 of the paper book) of his statement offered the said sum of ₹ 31 lakhs as his undisclosed income as part of the total surrendered amount of ₹ 5.50 crores. Shri Arun Nayyar further said that, however, later on the title of property was found defective and, thus, the deal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eived back from Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutta and, therefore, he made a separate addition of ₹ 31 lakhs for the cash given to Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutta as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer alleged that the impugned amount of ₹ 31 lakhs has not been received back by the assessee-company. In this regard, the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta recorded on July 17, 2007, wherein Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta has denied to have re .....

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 returned by him to the assessee. 16. The learned authorised representative contended that the authorities below are in total ignorance of the statement recorded by them and the evidences produced before them. The very preliminary statement of Shri Arun Nayyar recorded during the course of the search on July 17, 2006, itself clearly indicated that the amount paid to Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta was received back on March 31, 2006, by the assessee-company as the title of the property was found defect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee which has been fully and wholly relied upon by the authorities below. The learned authorised representative referred to pages 74 and 75 of the paper book wherein the relevant statement of Shri Dutta has been made available. 17. The learned authorised representative has further contended that from the perusal of the statement of Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta recorded in response to question No. 4, it is clear that the said land deal at Ghaziabad with the assessee could not be furthered due to cert .....

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 assessee was paid to Delhi Auto and General Finance Ltd. and since the said company had not returned the said cash, he was not in a position to refund the cash back to the assessee-company. Thus, it is clear that Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta has confirmed the transaction of the land deal and receiving of the said advance of ₹ 31 lakhs by way of cash. The learned authorised representative submitted that it was further confirmed by him that cash was entered by him in his cash book. Thus, 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

essee has stated that the money was received back by him, Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta has denied the refund of the same. He submitted further that whenever a property involving a substantial amount is purchased, an advertisement is given in the newspaper by way of public notice, to call for any objection from any person who may have had any interest in the said property which could have any adverse bearing upon the deal under contemplation. The assessee in regard to the said purchase of land in Ghaz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es 85 to 95 of the paper book) from which it was evident that there existed a dispute regarding the ownership of the said land between the two parties and the dispute was not resolved and was pending. Thus, the fact regarding the disputed ownership as stated by the assessee and also by Shri Ramesh Kumar Dutta stands confirmed and substantiated. 19. The learned authorised representative submitted that the authorities below have placed part reliance on the statement of Shri Ramesh Dutta wherein he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1 lakhs given. Eventually, the deal got cancelled and the refund was due. The deal being cancelled and the refund being due has been accepted by both the parties and even the authorities below have nowhere denied or differed on the said facts. However, both the authorities below have failed to appreciate that in the given facts of the case of the assessee, it is a well-accepted and uncontroverted fact that the assessee-company is in the business of real-estate dealings and development. 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

representative submitted further that for claiming business loss under section 28 or as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, the assessee is not required to write off the amount in its books of account and the only criteria for claiming such deduction is whether the loss or the expenses were incidental to the business of the assessee or not and since the abovementioned facts clearly show that the transaction in question is directly related to the business of the assessee, the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submitted that the assessee has thoroughly failed to establish that the money of ₹ 31 lakhs advanced by the assessee to Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutta was returned back, hence, the authorities below were justified in rejecting the above claim of the assessee. He submitted that the onus was lying upon the assessee to establish the claimed receiving back of the amount. 22. Having gone through the above submissions in view of the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied upon by the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ish that the said advance amount of ₹ 31 lakhs was returned to the assessee but we agree with the above submission of the assessee that the dealing in question was part of the business of the assessee and non-refund of the advance amount to the assessee was a business loss incidental to the business of the assessee. The loss was thus an allowable deduction under section 28 of the Act. In this regard, we find strength from the ratios laid down in the above cited decisions. The honourable Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f capital. The questions to consider in this connection are : for what purpose was the money laid out ? Was it to acquire an asset of an enduring nature for the benefit of the business, or was it an outgoing in the doing of the business ? If money be lost in the first circumstances, it is a loss of capital but if lost in the second circum stance, it is a revenue loss. In the first, it bears the character of an investment but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the charac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of section 37." 24. The honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 250 (Bom) has been pleased to hold as under (headnote) : "Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposes a charge on the profits or gains of business or profession. The expression 'profits and gains of business or profession' is to be understood in its ordinary commercia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

losses is to be allowed, if it arises in carrying on business and is incidental to it. There is no bar in claiming a loss as a business loss, if it is incidental to carrying on of a business. The fact that conditions for deduction as bad debt were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss." 25. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the abovecited decisions, we hold that the assessee is at least very much entitled to claim deductio .....

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 assessee, hence, both the parties are in appeal on this ground. 27. The relevant facts are that during the course of search, some papers were seized with regard to certain negotiations between the assessee- company with PRIL. These papers were related to a transaction in relation to purchase of property by way of company acquisition at Amritsar. On the reference of those papers, Shri Arun Nayyar, the director of the assessee- company admitted that in furtherance to the said negotiations with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re feet in the proposed shopping mall, Amritsar, in consideration of the takeover of the company. Thus, the entire amount of ₹ 2.56 crores paid in cash was received back from PRIL on March 31, 2006, and was introduced as cash by the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee that since the amount was received back by the assessee-company, the same was introduced as cash in the books of account. The Assessing Officer alleged that the cash introduced in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition of the shares of PRIL. 28. The Assessing Officer alleged that for purchase of shares for PRIL, the assessee-company had paid a sum of ₹ 12.19 crores outside the books of account of the assessee over and above the actual purchase consideration of ₹ 6 lakhs towards the purchase of shares of PRIL. Thus, a sum of ₹ 12.19 crores was added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the seized papers cannot be ignored as rough as has been claimed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of shares of PRIL. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has further held that the said unaccounted payment of ₹ 2.56 crores cannot be taxed twice, on the source of ₹ 2.56 crores. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the source of returned cash of ₹ 2.56 crores remained unexplained due to denial by Shri Arun Kapoor and, thus, deserves to be added under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. Thus, the parties are in cross appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evident from the seized papers, it was ultimately mutually agreed between Shri Arun Kapoor and the assessee-company that the total consideration of purchase of shares should be paid in the form of cheques as mentioned above and in addition to that it was agreed that a built-up space of 36,000 square feet in the proposed shopping mall in Amritsar was also to be provided by the assessee-company to Shri Arun Kapoor and his other shareholders. In this regard, a memorandum of understanding was also e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

payment of ₹ 6 lakhs by cheque. 2. Total 36,000 square feet area out of portion of built-up area of the proposed mall which was to be built upon the above said captioned land. Also it was agreed between the two companies to pay a sum of ₹ 1.19 crores by cheque as per detail given below, with the object to help the said company to discharge its liabilities. Date Vide Assets 3-8-2005 Ch. No. 942457 51 lakhs 9-8-2005 Pay orders 68 lakhs 30. The learned authorised representative referred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r of record and can be very much verified. He submitted that it can be seen that the total payment of ₹ 1.25 crores (Rs. 1.19 + ₹ 0.06 crores) was paid to PRIL, ₹ 1.19 crores being towards discharge of liability and ₹ 6 lakhs being towards sales consideration of shares. 32. Thus, the statement wherein Shri Arun Nayyar (page 100 of the paper book) stated that against the deal PRIL was to accept ₹ 1.25 crores and a built-up space of 36,000 square feet area stands corr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 34. The learned authorised representative submitted that while accepting that the land value was to the tune of ₹ 12.25 crores, the allegation of the Assessing Officer that only ₹ 6 lakhs was paid against the same, was a gross attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to misdirect himself and giving a false impression that the shares were acquired only for ₹ 6 lakhs as against the value of ₹ 12.25 crores. He submitted that, according to the Assessing Officer, the val .....

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 crores without any valuation report but on the basis of inferences drawn by him from the rough papers and scribbling seized during the course of search upon the assessee-company. The learned authorised representative pointed out that this point has been duly noted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while deleting the addition to the extent of ₹ 9.63 crores. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has accepted the memorandum of understanding (MOU) in its total .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was thus deposited back in the books as has been surrendered by the assessee. The source of return of cash of ₹ 2.56 crores being unexplained due to the denial by Shri Arun Kapoor, the same was added by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the income of the assessee- company under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The learned authorised representative contended that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly contradicted himself in confirmi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 6 lakhs paid by cheque. It was on this basis that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in all tightness deleted the addition of ₹ 9.63 crores. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) contended that when the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has accepted the said memorandum of understanding stating that the consideration for the shares and the deal was to the tune of ₹ 6 lakhs and the constructed area of 36,000 square feet only, then nothing more, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ack to the assessee as it no longer was the consideration to be paid as per the final deal arrived at. The purpose of the alleged payment gets lost. 35. The learned authorised representative contended further that an examination of the seized papers will reveal that the said seized page 50 (copy enclosed at page 138 of the paper book) indicating the value of the land decided on August 3, 2005, at ₹ 12.25 crores and also at pages 41 and 42 (copy enclosed at pages 140 and 141 of the paper bo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stage. Thus, when the memorandum of understanding was finalised as the final deal for the said transaction between the assessee and PRIL, as has been accepted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) himself, then, any payments made prior to the said memorandum of understanding and which are not in conformity with the terms of the memorandum of understanding have to be refunded back to the assessee, contended the learned authorised representative. 36. The learned authorised represent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ₹ 5.50 crores. In making the said surrender, the assessee has stated that the said payment of ₹ 2.56 crores was refunded back to him by PRIL since the deal was changed and the final deal did not require the said payment. The authorities below have very conveniently chosen to rely upon the statement of Shri Arun Nayyar in parts only. Part of the statement has been relied upon and part thereof has been rejected. He submitted that if the addition of ₹ 2.56 crores to be undiscl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by Shri Arun Kapoor is also solely based on the statement of Shri Arun Kapoor, wherein he has denied the refund of the cash to the assessee. In this connection, the learned authorised representative referred the statement of Shri Arun Kapoor wherein he has categorically denied not only the refund of the cash but also its receipt. The authorities below have taken due consideration and not of this but they both have again very conveniently chosen to believe only part belief of the statement. In ca .....

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 assessee-company. He submitted that the principle of approbate and reprobate is not applicable upon the Income-tax proceedings. The Assessing Officer cannot simply pick and chose part of the accounts/statement to be correct and the other part to be not genuine. He placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1966] 60 ITR 41 (SC) ; (ii) CIT v. Arman Sheikh [2007] 293 ITR 266 (Gauhati) ; (iii) Bansal Strips (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r of Income-tax (Appeals) while doing so has enhanced the income of the assessee by ₹ 2.56 crores without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per section 251 of the Act. 38. The learned authorised representative submitted further that admittedly the Assessing Officer has not made any assessment under section 68 holding the impugned amount as bogus cash credit or unexplained cash credit. The entire addition made by the Assessing Officer pertained to investment acq .....

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 said surrender : (i) Payment in cash to Mr. Ramesh Kumar Dutta against Indrapuram Plot (Ghaziabad) ₹ 31,00,000 (ii) Payment in cash against Amritsar plot to Mr. Arun Kapoor of PR Infrastructure Ltd. (PRIL) ₹ 2,56,00,000 (iii) Payment in cash to Mr. R. K. Sharma for purchase of property at Amritsar ₹ 2,00,00,000 39. The learned authorised representative about the first refund submitted that it was because of cancellation of the deal. The authorities below have accepted the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence of either payment or refund has been found in the books of the assessee. 41. Lastly, with regard to the third payment of ₹ 2 crores, the learned authorised representative submitted that the same was payment made to Shri R. K. Sharma on behalf of one of the group companies, GPS Properties Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of land, which, however, did not materialise and, thus, was refunded back to the assessee. 42. The learned authorised representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cepted the same in the earlier two surrenders. 43. He submitted that the assessee was questioned on the surrenders and he has at page 102 of the paper book in his statement stated that ₹ 2 crores was refunded as on March 31, 2006, which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer on the same facts for the earlier two surrenders has accepted this refund but has not accepted the earlier two. Thus, it goes to prove that the action of the Assessing Officer is arbitrary .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vidence revealed that there was transaction in relation to purchase of property at Amritsar and different kinds of receipts were issued by PRIL showing that different kinds of bills were under contemplation. On the basis of said seized papers, Shri Arun Nayyar, director of the assessee-company had admitted that in furtherance of the said plan/negotiation with regard to the proposed deal, the assessee has paid an aggregate cash of ₹ 2.56 crores to Shri Arun Kapoor (erstwhile director of PRI .....

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 conclusion that the cash introduced in the books of account by the assessee was not the same cash as paid by it to PRIL in the absence of evidence in support. Thus, he was justified in treating ₹ 2.56 crores as undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer was also justified in holding that for purchase of shares of PRIL, the assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 12.19 crores outside the books of the assessee-company over and above the actual purchase consideration of ₹ 6 lakhs towards pu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f these two figures has been assumed by the Assessing Officer to have been paid by the assessee-company and that is how the addition has been made by him. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was thus not justified in giving the relief to the assessee by deleting ₹ 9,63,00,000 out of the amount added by the Assessing Officer by entertaining additional evidence filed before him, i.e., the memorandum of understanding which was nothing but an afterthought. 45. After considering th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 crores. The seized papers were different kinds of receipts for the same amount issued by PRIL showing that different kinds of deals were under contemplation and nothing concrete had been executed by that time. Certain negotiation between the assessee and PRIL (owner of the property at Amritsar) was going on in relation to the transactions of the said property. The seized documents were marked as pages 41, 42, 50 and 56 on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had made an addition 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

see. The Assessing Officer held that the cash introduced in the books of the assessee-company was not the same cash as paid by it to PRIL and, thus, observed that a sum of ₹ 2.56 crores was also undisclosed income and he added the same separately. The Assessing Officer held further that since a separate addition of ₹ 12.19 crores was being made by him for the purchase of the shares of PRIL, therefore, no separate addition of ₹ 2.56 crores was made. The Assessing Officer held th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r dated July 12, 2006, and Shri Arun Kapoor dated December 17, 2007. Copies of these seized pages have been made available in the paper book filed by the assessee. Pages 41 and 42 are the documents dated August 14, 2005, titled as "undertaking/affidavit" wherein a further payment of ₹ 42 lakhs towards part consideration making the total receipts to ₹ 1 crore out of the sale consideration of ₹ 12.25 crores has been recorded. Page 50 dated August 3, 2005, indicates rece .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RIL were never produced and, thus, held that ₹ 12.19 crores was paid outside the books by the assessee towards the purchase of the shares. 46. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, remained that when some papers were seized during the course of search, certain negotiations between the assessee-company and PRIL was going on in relation to purchase of property by way of company acquisition at Amritsar. It was also supported by the papers revealing that for the same amount, different k .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2006, Shri Arun Nayyar upon which Assessing Officer has relied upon, has stated that the total consideration of the land was at ₹ 12.25 crores out of which ₹ 2.56 crores was paid to PRIL. Explaining the seized papers Nos. 41, 42, 50 and 51, he has clearly stated that the pages record a payment of ₹ 1 crore which included the cash payment of ₹ 49 lakhs (Rs. 42 lakhs and ₹ 7 lakhs). The said payment was included in the above payment of ₹ 2.56 crores. Shri Arun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in he had totally denied having received the constructed area of 36,000 square feet. He stated that Ambika Resorts Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by him and his family members had booked 36,000 square feet area in the proposed mall and as part of consideration ₹ 51 lakhs had been paid to them. The contention of the assessee remained that the Assessing Officer quoting part of the said statement has alleged that Shri Arun Kapoor had avoided commenting on the seized papers and on any issues regar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peals) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer wherein the Assessing Officer, vide his report dated May 6, 2011, opined that fresh evidence in the form of the memorandum of understanding should not be entertained inasmuch as none of the representatives during search had indicated about the presence of any memorandum of understanding. Also that there was several documents found during the course of search indicating that the cash payment of ₹ 12.19 crores was made over and abo .....

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 assessee to acquire the land through the purchase of the shares of PRIL ; (iv) it was clearly stated by Shri Arun Nayyar, the director of the assessee during the search itself that ₹ 2.56 crores paid was received back by him when it was agreed to take over the land by purchase of shares ; (v) there was evidently a change from purchase of land to purchase of shares of PRIL ; (vi) there were noting in the seized material for sharing of profit between the assessee and PRIL in the proposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a perusal of the memorandum of understanding, it was seen that the memorandum of understanding dated September 25, 2005, is duly signed by the assessee- company, Shri Arun Kapoor and also by two witnesses. We concur with the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the existence of the memorandum of understanding duly executed by the parties cannot be ignored unless it is proved to be false. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was thus justified in coming to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this action with this observation that the source of the returned cash of ₹ 2.56 crores remained unexplained due to the denial of Shri Arun Kapoor. He thus restricted the addition to ₹ 2.56 crores and added this amount under section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The contention of the assessee against this addition remained that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2.56 crores that too under section 68 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

ores but has failed to appreciate that nothing more, over and above the said documented sales consideration was to be paid to PRIL and ₹ 1.19 crores was paid in cheque towards settling the liability of the company which did not form part of the consideration to the shareholders. Thus, it was most logical corollary that the said ₹ 2.56 crores which was paid by the assessee during the negotiation stage has to be refunded back to the assessee as it was no longer a consideration to be pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 5.50 crores. While making the said surrender, the assessee had stated that the said payment of ₹ 2.56 crores was refunded back to him by PRIL. It was further contended that the authorities below while choosing to rely upon the statement of Shri Arun Nayyar (assessee) have referred only parts of it to justify the addition of ₹ 2.56 crores. Again, while relying upon the statement of Shri Arun Kapoor (PRIL), the lower authorities have used his part statement only which was favour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arding the acquisition of the property/PRIL ultimately settled in the memorandum of understanding dated September 25, 2005, duly executed by the parties, there is no reason to doubt the claim of the assessee that ₹ 2.56 crores was returned back which was deposited back in the books and surrendered by the assessee as a part of the total surrender of ₹ 5.50 crores, especially when the abovenoted some material facts by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) mentioned above 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

sessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is rejected. 50. Ground No. 2 (Revenue) : The Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹ 21.62 crores alleging that the assessee had paid an aggregate sum of ₹ 21.62 crores to the Captain Amrender Singh, Ex-CM of Punjab in the form of bribe for awarding of contract by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust/ Punjab Government with regard to the Ludhiana City Centre Mall. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the same against wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing Officer questioned the assessee on the same and being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had, however, deleted the addition without appreciating the material facts and ignoring the information received from the Vigilance Bureau of Punjab Police establishing that the money for beneficiary in the Ludhiana City Centre case was paid. 52. The learned authorised representative 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

issue which has been ignored by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the letter dated November 26, 2007, received from the ADIT (Inv.) which nowhere contains the name of the assessee or indicates to any payment being given by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also failed to appreciate that in his statement, Shri Chetan Gupta recorded on December 18, 2007, has denied all connection with the assessee. 53. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pta. Shri Chetan Gupta had denied the ownership of the pen drive before the ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana, during his statement which was reproduced in the assessment order. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while deleting the addition in question has placed reliance on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Singh, vide the order dated February 28, 2011, in I. T. A. No. 1934/2010. The relevant portion of the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 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

r. Chetan Gupta had denied the payment to the assessee in his statement recorded under section 131. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld this order on the following terms : As regards the merits of the addition, there is no evidence in the possession of the Revenue authorities to prove that the assessee ever paid cash to Sh. Chetan Gupta except the so-called report of the ADIT (Investigation), Ludhiana, which in turn based on the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. However, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vidence on record, the addition was not sustainable. It is strange to note that the Assessing Officer having recorded the statement of Sh. Chetan Gupta chosen to remain silent. This proves that in the statement of Sh. Chetan Gupta was no adverse factor affecting the tax liability of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition was rightly deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We find no infirmity or illegality in the aforesaid order. No substantial question of law arises for co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Gupta, wherein there was no mention anywhere in the accounts forwarded by the Vigilance Bureau about the name of the assessee or its director. Even the accounts forwarded by the Vigilance Bureau did not contain any reference of Citi Centre, Ludhiana. Shri Chetan Gupta had denied the ownership of the pen drive before the ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana, during his statement which has been reproduced in the assessment order. The statement recorded during the custody of Punjab Police was not available with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame has been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ultimately approved by the honourable Delhi High Court in the abovecited decision dated February 28, 2011. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was thus justified in deleting the addition in question. The same is upheld. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, rejected. 55. Ground No. 3 (Revenue) : It is regarding the deletion of the ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tate agents for facilitating booking of sale of property as well as leasing out of property which were in the process of sale by the assessee-company. The Assessing Officer accepted the factum of income of expenditure as well as rendering of services by these agents to whom the amount of commission/brokerage was paid during the year. The only grievance of the Assessing Officer was with respect to the amount of ₹ 59,04,788 out of the aggregate amount of ₹ 7.49 crores. The Assessing 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

assessed as income from house property subject to deduction under section 24 of the Act and not as profits and gains from the business subject to deduction under section 37 of the Act. He observed further that no lease rent was received by the assessee and there was no income from house property. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition with this finding that if lease income from the renting of the mall space has been by the assessee as his business income in the sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ised representative on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order on the issue and reiterated the submissions of the assessee made before the authorities below and the decision cited before them. He submitted that it is the business of the assessee to lease out property and to earn lease rent out of the same, which fact has been fully accepted as such by the Assessing Officer. The properties are all held as business assets and not as house properties. The fixed assets schedule (pa .....

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 name of the company for future project, better marketability of the shopping mall to attract customers with the leased property and not for the whole purpose of earning the rental income or any other income from the lessee. He submitted that this facts has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer as the impugned amount of commission has been paid. He has also not disputed that the services were rendered and the commission was paid for leasing of properties meaning thereby that the property .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd whether the ultimate benefit has accrued immediately or not, the expenses incurred shall be allowable if these have been incurred for business or for commercial expediency. Once the expenses have been found to be genuine and having been incurred for the purpose of the business, the quantum of the expenses cannot be examined by the Assessing Officer to adjudicate as to the aspect that how much of the expenses were justifiable and whether the expenses claimed are proportionate or disproportiona .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

K. Woollen Manufacturers v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC) ; (viii) Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) ; (ix) Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 14 (Delhi) ; (x)Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1961] 41 ITR 751 (SC) ; and (xi)Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Calvary Mount Estates (Private) Ltd. [1961] 41 ITR 755 (SC). 57. Considering the above submission, we find that this material fact is undisputed as the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

asing out of the property which were in the process of sale by the assessee-company. According to the Assessing Officer, the amount of ₹ 59,04,788 was incurred with regard to the leasing of the property and not sales of the property and since the assessee had not booked any income on account of leasing under the head "income from house property", therefore, the claimed expenditure in question was not allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uch, then the brokerage and commission paid on the same is to be allowed as expenditure under section 37 of the Act. It has not been rebutted that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of real estate development which includes the leasing out of various properties. This fact has also been fully accepted as such by the Assessing Officer. The properties are all held as business assets and not as house properties. The fixed assets schedule does not show any property as the fixed assets 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

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: On what Value tax to be deducted at source (TDS)

Forum: REGISTRETION

Highlight: IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% on supply of goods. - Notification no. 1/2017 as amended vide notification dated 22-9-2017

Notification: IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% on supply of goods.

Highlight: National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards - Tenure of the NACAS extended from one year to two years

Notification: National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

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 - "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary"

Highlight: Restriction on number of layers for certain classes of holding companies - More than two layers of subsidiaries not allowed subject to certain exceptions.

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Forum: GST Invoice

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

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

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

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

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



|| 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