9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of commission income for deduction under section 80-HHC. 2. Classification of certain incomes as income from other sources rather than business income. 3. Addition on account of cost of construction. 4. Addition of the cost of land on which construction took place. 5. Disallowance of loss on shares. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Commission Income for Deduction under Section 80-HHC: The assessee argued that the commission income received should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 80-HHC. The CIT(A) had rejected this claim, noting that in previous years, the assessee included commission in the total turnover. The Tribunal, referencing the Special Bench decision in the case of International Research Park Lab (50 ITD 37), held that commission received is not part of the turnover. The Tribunal emphasized that there cannot be estoppel against the law, as held by the Supreme Court in 158 ITR 574. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the commission income from the total turnover for deduction under section 80-HHC, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. 2. Classification of Certain Incomes as Income from Other Sources Rather than Business Income: The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s treatment of incomes such as interest on bank deposits, rent, insurance, postage, stamps, and LC opening commission as income from other sources for the purpose of deduction under section 80-HHC. The Tribunal noted that whether an income falls under 'income from other sources' or 'business income' is a legal issue that can be raised at any stage, referencing the Supreme Court decision in NTPC (229 ITR 383). The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to determine afresh whether any part of the income was taxable as business income and should be considered for deduction under section 80-HHC. 3. Addition on Account of Cost of Construction: The assessee disclosed a construction cost of Rs. 17,14,392, supported by an approved valuer's report. The Assessing Officer, without referring to a valuation officer, estimated the cost at Rs. 22,21,604 and added the difference to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) largely upheld this addition. The Tribunal found that the entire difference could not be added to a single year and noted that the valuation report provided by the assessee was not countered by another expert opinion. The Tribunal held that unless defects were found in the disclosed cost, the addition was unjustified, referencing decisions in 200 ITR 788 (Raj.) and 27 ITD 1 (Delhi - TM). The Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). 4. Addition of the Cost of Land on Which Construction Took Place: The CIT(A) upheld an addition on the grounds that the cost of land was not disclosed. The assessee argued that the cost of land was separately shown in the investment, with evidence provided. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions, found that the cost of land was indeed separately shown and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). 5. Disallowance of Loss on Shares: The assessee admitted that this ground was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing this ground for statistical purposes. Appeal by Revenue: 1. Inclusion of Commission in Total Turnover: The revenue argued that the entire turnover on which commission was earned should be included. The Tribunal noted that this issue was already decided against the revenue in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1989-90 and dismissed this ground. 2. Addition on Account of Cost of Construction: The revenue contested the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding the cost of construction. The Tribunal, having accepted the cost of construction declared by the assessee, dismissed this ground. 3. Expenditure on Miscellaneous Items: The revenue's ground against the relief of Rs. 50,000 for miscellaneous expenditure was deemed vague. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings. Conclusion: The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
|
