TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions of section 139 of the Act and it is done before the AO and not before the first or second appellate authorities i.e. CIT(A), ITAT or Higher judiciary. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is justified in entertaining and adjudicating and therefore, the ground raised by the revenue is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the ground of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Short Term Capital Loss computation - Held that:- The assessee in the instant case has sold the shares on different two dates i.e. 22.12.2008 and 2.2.2009. So it is clear that the assessee in the case on hand the assessee has sold the shares before 31.3.2009 but the AO has taken the value for the shares on the basis of balance sheet as on 31.3.2009. In our considered view the action of the AO is baseless. The AO has not brought any defect in the purchase price and sale price of the shares. The AO has made the addition on his own surmise and conjuncture. The break-up value of the share as on 31.3.2008 is of ₹ 126.93 per share which is very close the sale price of the shares i.e. ₹ 125 per share. Therefore the breakup value adopted by the AO as on 31.3.2009 is not correct value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y notices u/s 143(2) was issue. The assessment was framed at ₹ 93,28,660/- u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 80G in its original return. During assessment proceedings assessee revised its computation of income and claimed the deduction amounting to ₹ 2.50 lakh i.e.(50% of ₹ 5 lakh) u/s 80G of the Act for the payment made to Bhagwani Devi Jajodia Memorial Trust. The AO observed during the assessment proceedings that the assessee has claimed the deduction without revising the return of income. The assessee has also not given any details regarding the donation made like name and address of the donee, PAN of the donee, amount of donation in the schedule of the return. So the AO has disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80G. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) who has allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee by observing as under:- I have considered the Assessment Order and the appellant s submission along with the case laws relied upon. The AO has not allowed deduction u/s 80G for ₹ 2,50,000/- on the ground that the same w s not claimed in the return and was claimed only throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first or second appellate authorities i.e. CIT(A), ITAT or Higher judiciary. Therefore, the CIT(A) is justified in entertaining and adjudicating and therefore, the ground raised by the revenue is required to be dismissed. CIT(A) can admit an additional ground raised by the assessee, which was not raised before the assessing officer In view of the above judgment of the Apex court, it is evident that the making of a new claim if any before the AO is required to be done only by way of filing the revised return of income and not by way of letters or by way of filing revised computation etc. But when comes to the Tribunal or for that matter the CIT(A), who is also not the assessing officer, but who is the appellate authority, assessee does not have to initiate a new claim before them by way of filing the revised return of income. As such the returns or revised returns are filed under the provisions of section 139 of the Act and it is done before the AO and not before the first or second appellate authorities i.e. CIT(A), ITAT or Higher judiciary. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is justified in entertaining and adjudicating and therefore, the ground raised by the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.111,60,43,892/- Total No. of shares issued as on 31.03.2008 : 67,00,000 shares Break up value = 0.85 x (111,60,43,892 / 67,00,000) =Rs.142/- Accordingly, the STCL assessed by the AO works out at ₹ 1,68,06,400/- (142-243 * 166400 = 1,68,06,400/-). Therefore the AO has allowed STCL only to the extent of ₹ 1,68,06,400/- based. 9. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) whereas assessee submitted that the AO has not doubted the legality of the transactions. The assessee and the buyer were not the sister concern. The AO has no power to overstep its jurisdiction and calculate the break-up value of UIC Udyog Ltd. The assessee has sold the shares of UIC Ltd on two different dates i.e. 22/12/2008 and 02/02/2009 and calculated the break-up value on the basis of the audited figures as on 31/03/2009 which was not available at the time of sale of shares. Considering the submissions of assessee Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the STCL for the total amount of ₹ 1,96,35,200.00 as claimed by the assessee by observing as under: I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
