|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1281 Records
-
2014 (9) TMI 1208 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition as cash payment - un-disclosed income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Factum of receipts found from the possession of the assessee for the return of loan by the assessee to Shri Anil Oberoi. The said loan was returned in cash. The receipts were found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 20.7.2000 and the same evidences the transaction of payment of money by the assessee. The assessee had failed to offer any explanation vis-à-vis the source of the payment of said amount of ₹ 8 lacs repaid by the assessee.
No merit in the claim of the assessee that the loan of ₹ 8 lacs was still outstanding in its books of account and the books of account of M/s Oberoi Plastics Ltd. Further the un-disclosed income declared by Shri Ramesh NIkhanj and Shri H.S.Chadha, AOP had no relevance to the documents found in the case of the assessee. We reverse the order of the CIT (Appeals) and confirm the addition of ₹ 8 lacs made by the Assessing Officer.
Addition made on account of un-disclosed sale of eggs - HELD THAT:- As per section 158BC of the Act the computation of un-disclosed income of the block period shall be aggregate of the total income of the previous year falling within the block period, computed on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account and/or other documents or information as is available with the Assessing Officer, reduced by the total income declared by the assessee. The basis for computing the un-disclosed income of the block period in the hands of any assessee is on the basis of the evidence found as a result of search.
The search operations were carried out at the premises of the assessee on 20.7.2000 and a spiral diary was impounded. However, the diary though had certain notings, but do not bear any date and it cannot be presumed that the said diary relate to the period prior to 20.7.2000 i.e. the date of search. The addition made on such surmises cannot stand and we confirm the order of the CIT (Appeals) in this regard.
The second aspect of the said addition was explanation given by the assessee during the appellate proceedings that even the total of the figures was incorrect and the Assessing Officer had failed to consider both the opening and closing stock while computing the sales in the hands of the assessee. The addition on this account also is deleted. The documents seized during the course of search at best are dumb documents and cannot be relied upon to make the aforesaid addition. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss the ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue.
Undisclosed income for the block period on the perusal of certain documents seized - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) under the provision of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act is to pass a speaking order on the facts and circumstances before it. However, we find that the CIT(A) has failed to give a finding in respect of the issues raised before it except for upholding the claim of the assessee that all the above said amounts are included in the peak investment taxed in the hands of the AOP. The CIT(A) refers to the arguments of the assessee in respect of assessment years 1995-96 to 2001-02 being outside the purview provisions of Chapter XIV B, being worked out on hypothetical basis, and the deletion made by the CIT(A) is not appealed by the Revenue. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issues pointed out by us in paras 22 & 23 in line with our directions in the para hereinabove and after considering the facts and totality and after due verification of the details of peak investment worked out in the hands of the AOP, both in respect of the quantum and the persons whose income is included in such peak investments.
CIT(A) shall allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is clarified that issue raised before by the Revenue is only in respect of deletion of addition on account of interest earned for assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96 and thus issues sent back to the file of CIT(A) are only in respect of the aforesaid assessment years. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2014 (9) TMI 1207 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Cross appeals, have become infructuous as upon remand, fresh order has been passed and in view of the findings recorded after adjustment of (+) (-) 5% as stipulated in proviso to Section 92CA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even if we do take into consideration the lease rental, the difference would be within permissible margin. These appeals are accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction by way of depreciation u/s 32(1) - in the earlier years and, therefore, the written down value on which depreciation was to be allowed for the year under consideration should have been higher to that extent - HELD THAT:- In the year in question the assessee has claimed depreciation and there is no question of thrust of any depreciation but its grievance is that the final orders of the earlier years which have not been properly implemented. The assessee desires there should be a specific direction to the Assessing Officer on this behalf so as not to disturb the finality of the orders of the orders of the earlier years. Departmental Representative on the other hand, has no objection if a specific direction is given to the AO. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer that the written down value as at the beginning of the year shall be computed only on the basis of the orders which have already reached the finality. In other words, the depreciation actually claimed or directed to be allowed only shall be taken into consideration before arriving the written down value of the assets in question.
Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the cash flow statement at Annual report shows that the assessee had sufficient cash accruals from its own funds therefore we agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that no part of interest can be disallowed nor this issue is before us.
Disallowance of other direct or indirect expenditure, the assessee has computed the disallowance at ₹ 24,304/- by allocating the salary paid to junior accountant. We do not agree with this computation of disallowance by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that investment is a policy decision taken by the Board of Directors at the highest level which requires lot of consultancy from various experts. Therefore, the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) becomes imperative, as the disallowance have been computed by the AO as per the applicable provisions of law. We do not find any reason to interfere with the disallowance.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1205 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Permission for adduction of evidence - dismissal of application by District Judge - HELD THAT:- The reasoning of the District Judge not permitting the petitioners to file their and witnesses affidavits in proof of the case and extending a corresponding opportunity to the defendants/respondents to place their evidence by affidavit is arbitrary and irrational. The approach of the District Judge in dealing with the I.A. is patently wrong and opposed to the settled principles of law.
Petition allowed.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1204 - SC ORDER
Addition on the basis of inflated stock statement submitted to bank - Addition under Section 69B as per HC only on account of inflated statements furnished to the banking authorities for the purpose of availing of larger credit facilities, no addition can be made if there appears to be a difference between the stock shown in the books of account and the statement furnished to the banking authorities - HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Allowability of marketing expenses - nature of the arrangement between the assessee company and the brand owners whereby the assessee was saddled with such marketing expenses - HELD THAT:- Appeal is, therefore, admitted on the following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in allowing the assessee's claim of marketing expenses for the period from 01-12-1997 to 31-8-1998 incurred by the assessee of ₹ 29,22,88,006/- disallowed by the assessing officer under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the expenditures being not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in not appreciating the true nature of the arrangement between the assessee company and the brand owners whereby the assessee was saddled with such marketing expenses which are in fact and for all intent liability of the foreign company owning the brands and the trademarks ?
-
2014 (9) TMI 1202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction - whether suit could be filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant through one of the director without passing a specific resolution empowering a director to file a suit against a particular party and if no such resolution is passed, what is the consequence thereof? - Whether application under order 7 rule 11(d) was at all maintainable on the ground that suit was bad for want of specific resolution in favour of a director to file a such suit against the defendant company? - Whether defect if any was curable and plaint could not be rejected on that ground?
HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the defendant had already filed an application in the same suit in the year 2006 under order 7 rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relying upon the averments made in the plaint and inter alia praying that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and was thus liable to be rejected. The defendant never raised any issue at that stage that the plaint itself was liable to be rejected on the ground that no specific resolution was passed by the company authorising the director to file specific suit against the defendant. The learned District Judge after considering the submission of both parties rejected application under order 7 rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not in dispute that the respondent did not challenge the said order passed by the District Court as far back as on 25th September 2006.
It is thus clear that the defendant had accepted the fact that no such specific resolution was required to be passed authorising a director to file specific suit against the defendant. The respondent not having raised such issue in the earlier application filed under order 7 rule 11(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and having relied upon the plaint could not have file another application under order 7 rule 11(d) though earlier application having been rejected holding that the plaint disclosed cause of action.
Once the company had accepted and confirmed the authority granted to one of his Director to file such suit, the objection raised by the respondent was taken care of. The learned trial Judge therefore could not ignore such confirmation on the authority of the director or in the alternative ought to have render a finding about ratification by the board of the acts of its Director for filing such suit on behalf of the company. Be that as it may, the said affidavit itself was in the nature of a ratification by the board of the acts of the director who had filed and signed the plaint on behalf of the company.
Application allowed.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1201 - SC ORDER
Ad-interim temporary in junction restraint - HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed order.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1200 - ITAT PUNE
Capital gain computation - reference of mater to DVO - assessee has adopted the value of the land as on 01-04-1981 - whether AO has power to refer the matter to the DVO for determination of the fair market value when the fair market value adopted by the assessee is more than the fair market value determined by the DVO? - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. PUJA PRINTS [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] AO has no power to refer the matter u/s.55A for determining the fair market value of the property. Once the reference u/s.55A is held as not in accordance with law, the further exercise as done by the Ld.CIT(A) becomes academic in nature. We accordingly allow the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1199 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital gain computation - adoption of sale consideration - HELD THAT:- Though the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority would be helpful indicator to determine the fair market value as on the date of development but the same also cannot be taken as what was to be received by the assessee was specific quantity of area of developed property, the value of which will be different from the value of vacant land.
As per clause 18(a) the period of completion of project is mentioned as 48 months from the date of receipt of commencement certificate. The constructed area to be received by the assessee is in an undeveloped project which is yet to commence.
Therefore, the value which can be assessed as sale consideration in the hands of the assessee should be akin to the value of similar property in an underdeveloped project which was yet to commence and to be completed in 4 years from the date of commencement of the project as mentioned in the development agreement signed by the assessee. This factor was brought to the notice of both the parties during the course of hearing of the appeal and both of them have agreed that to determine the fair market value for the purpose of determining the sale consideration assessable as capital gain in the above manner, the matter may be restored back to the file of AO. Therefore, we restore the issue to the file of AO with a direction to determine the consideration on which the assessee is liable to pay capital gain as described in the manner aforesaid after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing
Adoption of value determined by DVO as cost of acquisition - reference to DVO for the purpose of valuation - taking the cost of the property as on 1/4/1981 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal held that in view of section 55A(a) it was not permissible for the AO to make a reference to DVO for the purpose of valuation as the value of property declared by the assessee was more than its fair market value. Thus, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that indexed cost should be taken as per value determined by a Registered Valuer of the assessee. Such order of Tribunal was confirmed by their Lordships. Their Lordships also rejected the contention of the Department that in view of amendment to section 55A(a) the AO was authorized to refer the matter to the valuation officer. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we decide this issue in favour of assessee and we hold that the indexed cost should be computed on the basis of valuation done by the Registered Valuer of the assessee i.e. by taking the cost of the property as on 1/4/1981 at a sum of ₹ 50,08,320/-. Ground No.5 of the assessee is allowed.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1198 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Review petition - Attachment orders - recovery proceedings - regularization of the sale seeked - disputed property was under the attachment of the Income Tax Department, which was sold for recovery of the outstanding dues of the Hindu Undivided Family of one Kirodimull Lohariwala - HELD THAT:- The income tax authorities in this application for review, also, maintains their stand that when the prayer for regularization of the sale was not granted by order dated 8th September, 1965 and this Court directed to sell the property in the best price, the sale in favour of Vasudeva was not final.
In our view, there are errors apparent on the face of record and the order dated 19th October, 2012 has to be reviewed. A Court reviewing an earlier order can pass an order in favour of the applicant. There is an error apparent on the face of record.
An error apparent on the face of record cannot be defined scientifically, precisely and exhaustively. It should be determined considering the facts of each individual case.
In the case in hand error is apparent and self-evident. A proper reading of the order dated 17th August, 2001, in M.A.T. no. 87 of 1999 reveals and it could not only reveal that the Appeal Court affirmed the order dated 20th November, 1998. Moreover, the private respondents in the application for special leave against order dated 17th August, 2001, inter alia, proceeded on the basis that the appeal against the said order was dismissed.
Therefore, the Vasudevas are not entitled from reagitating the dispute, which has been subject of a judicial decision earlier. The Vasudevas cannot turn around and take a contrary stand when the other party had accepted their reading and acted upon to their detriment.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1197 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - as per assessee advance was taken for the purpose of purchase of land in Himachal Pradesh and because of the restriction, land could not be purchased and, therefore, amount was returned, therefore, the transaction was of the business nature and the same cannot be treated as deemed dividend - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence to show that company where the assessee was director wanted to set up a resort in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Even if such company wanted to set up a resort, the company itself could have invested the money directly in its own name and that would have been permissible in the State of Himachal Pradesh because land can be purchased in the State of Himachal Pradesh for business purposes.
This company is mainly earning income from dividend and interest on fixed deposits. In 2009, this company has received some interest also. The schedule of assets at page 16 clearly shows that most of the investments have been clearly made in the mutual funds. Even if it is assumed that company is mainly engaged in the business of lending money then it cannot be said that the said company has lent money to the assessee in the ordinary course of business because for that to happen the said company would have definitely charged the interest. The making of advances in the ordinary course of business of lending itself connotes charging of interest on such lending and admittedly the assessee had received the advance without any interest.
Thirdly, this is only an after thought because original explanation before the lower authority and even before us was that money was taken for the purpose of purchase of land in Himachal Pradesh and it was never claimed that money was lent to the assessee in the ordinary course of business of lending, therefore, we find no force in these submissions. In view of this, we find nothing wrong with the order of CIT(A) and we confirm the same. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1196 - ITAT DELHI
Taxability of advance against depreciation (AAD) - Addition on account of advance against depreciation while computing regular income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (11) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI] AAD is not meant for an uncertain purpose. AAD is an amount that is under obligation, right from the inception, to get adjusted in the future, hence, cannot be designated as a reserve. AAD is nothing but an adjustment by reducing the normal depreciation includible in the future years in such a manner that at the end of useful life of the Plant (which is normally 30 years) the same would be reduced to nil. Therefore, the assessee cannot use the AAD for any other purpose (which is possible in the case of a reserve) except to adjust the same against future depreciation so as to reduce the tariff in the future years.
In view of the categorical finding of the Supreme Court NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2010 (1) TMI 281 - SUPREME COURT] we hold that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that advance against depreciation cannot be added under the computation of the normal income. The order of CIT(A) is upheld and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Addition in the book profit while computing Minimum Alternate Tax liability under section 115JB on account of the tariff adjustments - ascertained liability - AO made this addition to the book profit as well as normal income - CIT- deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- AO has added this amount considering the same as unascertained liability. In our considered view, this contention of the AO is not correct. In fact it is not a liability at all. It is a reduction in the sale consequent to the rate being determined by the CERC which by the calculation done by the appellant company itself was required to be done. This view of ours gets further strengthened from the fact that the CERC approved tariff rates vide order dated 29th May, 2006 and 31st May, 2006 which resulted into further reduction by ₹ 18.74 Crores. Thus it cannot be said that the adjustment made by the appellant company was not correct or not bonafide. It is not the case of the AO that the rate proposed by the appellant company was different as compared to the rate which it has applied for the tariff adjustment. The contention of the AO that this liability has not crystallized is also not correct. The AO has not appreciated the facts in the right perspective while the CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts of this issue, therefore, we sustain the order of CIT (A).
Addition to book profit on account of provision made for gratuity, leave encashment and post retirement benefits - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2002-03 [2010 (10) TMI 1022 - ITAT DELHI] once the assessee is maintaining his accounts on mercantile system, a liability accrued though to be discharged at a future date would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of business, regard being had to be accepted principles of commercial practice and accountancy. If the facts of the case are viewed in the light of the decisions referred to above, we find that the provision made by the assessee in respect of gratuity, leave encashment and post retirement medical benefit on actuarial basis cannot be said provisions for unascertained liability so as to fall in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 115-JB (2) of the Act. Accordingly the CIT (Appeals) and the assessing officer erred in holding the provisions made by the assessee were on account of unascertained liability to be added back under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 115-JB (2) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the authorities below and direct the assessing officer to allow the claim of the assessee.
Addition on account of provision for doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- AR was fair enough to concede that this issue is covered against the assessee in view of the retrospective amendment made by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. Accordingly this ground of the department is allowed.
Addition on account of amortization of land by addition to the book profit - MAT computation - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case it is not the case of the Revenue here that the adjustment made by the AO is under Explanation to section 115J. The contention of the Revenue here is that land is not a depreciable asset and depreciation charged in the profit and loss account which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act read with Accounting Standard 6. As stated hereinabove, the contention of the Revenue that the land in question of the assessee company is not a depreciable asset is factually incorrect and further as held by the Supreme Court no adjustment can be made to net profit as certified by the statutory auditors.
Applicability of provisions of section 234B(2)(ii) read with section 140A - as contended by the Ld. DR that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the adjustment of the self assessment tax before deducting the same in respect of the interest liability arising under section 234B - HELD THAT:- As decided in PATSON TRANSFORMERS LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-VIII [2005 (11) TMI 388 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] we are of the considered view that adjustment towards interest payable under section 234B is to be considered only at the time of filing return of income i.e., when payment of self-assessment under section 140A is required to be made. Before that interest under section 234B is independently required to be calculated only in accordance with the provisions provided in section 234B(i). If at the time of filing return it is found short payment after adjustment of interest out of tax paid under section 140A, further interest is required to calculate in accordance with section 234B(2)(ii), on balance amount which is assessed tax minus advance tax and ad hoc payment.
Thus, we find that approach of revenue for calculation of interest under section 234B is not correct, therefore, the orders of lower authorities are set-aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate interest under section 234B as per above discussion
-
2014 (9) TMI 1195 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80HHC - Characterization of income - interest earned - business income or income from the other sources - HELD THAT:- Interest income earned by the Respondent/ Assessee is an earning out of its business activity only, as it has direct nexus with the said amount of business activity. The interest received by the Respondent/Assessee is having direct or proximate relationship with their main business activity and as such, the same has to be treated as "business income". As stated earlier, the money of the company was used for making investment in the bank deposits or call money market or inter-corporate deposits with the objective for availing short term loans or for keeping deposits for the purpose of LC's and said money had always retained its character as business assets. In our opinion, the surplus money, unless and until it is pulled out totally from the business and having absolutely no nexus with the amount or ancillary business activity and thereby the same is deposited with the bank only and solely with a view of earning interest by keeping the said funds idle, then it can be treated as non-business income or income from the other sources.
In view of the facts of the present cases, we are of the opinion that the interest earned by the Respondent/Assessee is "business income" only and we hold that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the interest income earned by the Respondent/Assessee is a business income. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (9) TMI 1194 - SC ORDER
Deposit in compliance of the order dated 01.08.2014 - HELD THAT:- It is directed that the said amount be transmitted to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Puningutta, Hyderabad in ADC Order No. 985 dated 10.06.2013.
The appeal is restored to the file of the appellate authority for hearing of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1193 - SC ORDER
Stay of operation of impugned Judgement - HELD THAT:- As the respondents have entered caveat, no further notice be issued.
There shall be stay of operation of impugned judgment.
List after six weeks.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1192 - ITAT KOLKATA
Electricity expenses paid while computing the income from house property - taking the ALV u/s 23 as gross rent - HELD THAT:- ALV the relatable expenses that as in the present case the electricity charges paid by the assessee has to be deducted from the gross rent in view of the above proposition allowed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and various Benches of this Tribunal.
One more aspect to this issue is that even for the sake of consistency from last 30 years, Revenue is allowing the payment of electricity charges from gross rent. To support this, assessee’s ld. Counsel Shri Sunil Surana filed copy of the assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 passed under section 143(3) vide order dated 30.09.2010, which was passed subsequent to the passing of the assessment order in the present case, whereby the deduction was allowed by the AO himself. Even for the sake of consistency also, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1191 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153A - additions made u/s 68, 69, 69C - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not been given proper opportunity by the tax authorities. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that all the issues need to be examined afresh.
Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by CIT(A) in all the years under consideration and restore all the issues to the file of the AO with the direction to examine all the issues afresh by duly considering the information and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee is also direct to extend full co-operation to the assessing officer by furnishing the necessary details that may be called for by the AO. Appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1190 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment of AOP - MAT computation u/s 115JB - Share of assessee's income in two AOPs while computing book profit u/s.115JB - Exemption u/s.10(2A) - entitled for exemption u/s.86 in respect of share income received from two AOPs - AO did not allow exemption u/s.86 on the plea that the profit of AOPs were eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- We are not in agreement with the finding of the lower authorities that since both the AOPs have claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10), the assessee's share of income in these AOPs will not be eligible for exemption. It may be noted that Section 67A provides "method for computing a member's share in income of association of persons or body of individuals". The income of the member company of the AOP is to be computed as per Section 67A of the Income Tax Act and the Income tax authorities cannot go beyond the provisions of Section 67A of the Act. U/s.86, whatever the share of the member company is computed u/s.67A of the Act, is deductible/will not be chargeable to tax, subject to the proviso to Section 86.
So the income of the AOP is to be computed as per the provisions of the Act and the member's share is to be computed as per the provisions of Section 67A of the Act and not otherwise. We accordingly set aside the order of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the AO to work out the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of Section 67A read with provisions of Section 86. Here, it is pertinent to mention that computation of share of the assessee will be dependent upon the final determination/computation of total income of the AOP. If the AOP will not be allowed deduction u/s.80IB, there will be enhancement in the share of the assessee to be computed u/s.67A of the Act. Hence, it is directed that the AO will also take into consideration the total income computed of the concerned AOPs while computing share of the assessee company.
AO has also brought to net of tax its book profit which included share of profit in two AOPs as per provisions of Section 115JB - No merit in the AR's contention insofar as Section 115JB has been brought in statute to tax the book profit shown in the books of account as Part II & Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. It is not the case of the assessee that share of income of AOP has not been credited in the P&L account as per Part II & Part III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Since the profit and loss account so prepared has been approved by the Board of Director of assessee company, there is no reason to exclude the profit credited in the P&L account in respect of share of assessee's income in two AOPs while computing book profit u/s.115JB. Accordingly, ground raised by assessee with regard to exclusion of such income while computing book profit u/s.115JB is not tenable.
-
2014 (9) TMI 1189 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Capital gain computation - reference of the matter to the D.V.O. for determining the Fair Market Value of the land as on 01/04/1981 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the market value as on 01/04/1981 with regard to cost of construction. The only dispute is regarding value of land as on 01/04/1981. In support of the value of the land adopted by the assessee for computing the capital gain, the assessee has submitted a report of Registered Valuer.
AO has not referred the matter to D.V.O. and on his own, he has rejected the report of Registered Valuer and chose to adopt rate of ₹ 6/- per sq. ft. as market value of land as on 01/04/81.
Issue is covered in favour of the assessee as the assessee has submitted the valuation report of the Registered valuer and the matter was not referred y the AO to D.V.O., the AO has to accept the report of the Registered Valuer regarding market value of the land as on 01/04/81 as claimed by the assessee. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gain by adopting value of land as on 01/04/81 as claimed by the assessee duly supported by the report of the Registered Valuer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
