|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 948 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1189
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves appeals by the Revenue against orders of the ld.CIT(A)-II, Kanpur for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 regarding deletion of addition of Job Charges paid to M/s KSM Export Pvt. Ltd.
Assessment Year 2006-07:
The AO disallowed Job Charges paid by the assessee to M/s. KSM Exports Ltd. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition following a Tribunal order for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal observed that the claim of job work charges was supported by various documents and evidence, and directed the AO to verify the quantum and allow it in full. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating the facts were similar to the previous year.
Assessment Year 2007-08:
Similar to the previous year, the AO disallowed Job Charges paid by the assessee to M/s. KSM Exports Ltd. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2005-06. Both parties agreed that the facts were akin to the earlier year. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing similarity in facts and the previous Tribunal order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Job Charges addition for both assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, following the precedent set in the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying claims with supporting evidence and documents, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeals in both instances.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1188
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 12,88,956/- on account of unrecorded sales.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 78,024/- out of telephone/car expenses for personal use.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 12,88,956/- on account of unrecorded sales
The appeal by the assessee challenges the order of CIT(A), Karnal, dated 1.10.2009, relating to the assessment year 2006-07, against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The primary issue is the addition of Rs. 12,88,956/- for sales not recorded in the books. The assessee argued that the sales were recorded in the Assessment Year 2007-08 when the goods were supplied. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the TDS certificate for Rs. 29,640/- was issued by the Principal, MLN College, Allahabad, for the Financial Year 2005-06 against contract payments of Rs. 12,88,956/-. The AO found that the sales were not recorded in the books for the year under assessment, despite the TDS claim. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the sale took place in the period relevant to Assessment Year 2006-07 as per the mercantile system of accounting, irrespective of the delivery date. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO to re-adjudicate the completion of the contract after considering all evidence and making proper inquiries, thus allowing the ground of appeal for statistical purposes.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 78,024/- out of telephone/car expenses for personal use
The second issue concerns the disallowance of Rs. 78,024/- out of telephone/car expenses for personal use by the partners. The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs. 3,90,123/- on account of telephone and car expenses, including car interest, car insurance, and car depreciation. The AO disallowed 1/5 of the expenditure for personal use. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that payment of fringe benefit tax (FBT) does not negate the personal use of cars by the partners. However, the Tribunal found no merit in disallowing any part of such expenditure where FBT has been paid and directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee in entirety, thus deleting the addition of Rs. 78,024/-.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, with the issue of unrecorded sales remanded back to the AO for re-adjudication and the disallowance of telephone/car expenses deleted.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 9th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1187
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of moulds as capital assets or consumable spares.
2. Rate of depreciation on moulds.
3. Depreciation rate on Tractor and Trolley.
4. Addition of Rs. 78,40,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Moulds as Capital Assets or Consumable Spares:
The assessee claimed expenditure on the purchase of moulds as revenue expenditure, arguing that moulds had a short life span due to high temperatures and were replaced frequently. The Assessing Officer (AO) classified these moulds as capital assets, disallowing the revenue expenditure claim and allowing depreciation instead. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that moulds are capital assets eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider the consistent accounting method followed by the assessee in treating moulds as consumables. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to evaluate the consistent accounting method and the nature of the moulds.
2. Rate of Depreciation on Moulds:
The assessee argued for a 40% depreciation rate on moulds, citing their short lifespan and frequent replacement. The AO allowed depreciation at 25%, which the CIT(A) upheld, noting that a 40% rate applies only to moulds used in plastic and rubber goods factories, not applicable to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reassess the depreciation rate considering the consistent accounting method and the nature of the moulds.
3. Depreciation Rate on Tractor and Trolley:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow depreciation at 25% on Tractor and Trolley, against the assessee's claim of 40%. The Tribunal did not provide a separate analysis for this issue, indicating it was not pressed during the appeal hearing.
4. Addition of Rs. 78,40,000/- under Section 68:
The AO added Rs. 78,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, suspecting the genuineness of cash sales due to the absence of purchaser names, quantities, and transport details on sales bills. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the sales were recorded in the profit and loss account, and the transactions were normal business activities with payments made by cheques. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO did not provide evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions or that the payments came back to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that treating cash sales as unexplained cash credit would result in double taxation.
Other Grounds:
Grounds 3 and 4 in the assessee's appeal were not pressed, and grounds 5, 2, and 3 in the Revenue's appeal were deemed general and did not require separate adjudication.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, directing a reassessment of the nature and depreciation rate of moulds while upholding the deletion of the addition under Section 68.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1186
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Disallowance of interest payable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of transaction between the assessee and ICICI.
3. Entitlement of the assessee for lease rent as a hire purchaser.
Disallowance of interest payable:
The appellant-Revenue raised a question regarding the deletion of disallowance of interest payable amounting to Rs. 48,70,43,278/- by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the amount was revenue expenditure allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, disregarding the provisions of Section 43(1) Explanation 8 of the Act. The Court found that the controversy was already concluded in the assessee's own case in Tax Appeal No.236/2001, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Validity of transaction:
Another question raised was whether the transaction between the assessee and ICICI was a sham transaction. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal did not appreciate this argument. However, based on the previous order in Tax Appeal No.236/2001, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
Entitlement for lease rent:
The third question raised was whether the assessee, being a hire purchaser, was entitled to lease rent amounting to Rs. 19,60,46,324/-. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held in favor of the assessee on this issue. Due to the reasons stated in the previous order in Tax Appeal No.236/2001, the Court found no legal question to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and thus dismissed the appeal.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1185
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of interest, sham transactions, lease rent entitlement, and contingent liability.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest
- The appellant-Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 54,60,10,262 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
- The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for interest paid in relation to capital borrowed for business expansion.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal, leading to the current dispute.
Issue 2: Sham Transactions
- The appellant questioned the authenticity of transactions between the assessee and ICICI, alleging them to be sham transactions.
- The Tribunal's decision regarding the genuineness of these transactions was a point of contention.
Issue 3: Lease Rent Entitlement
- The dispute arose over the entitlement of the assessee, a hire purchaser, to lease rent amounting to Rs. 17,63,37,171.
- The Tribunal's ruling in favor of the assessee on this matter was challenged by the appellant.
Issue 4: Contingent Liability Disallowance
- The appellant contested the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,22,14,000 payable to BPCL, arguing it was a contingent liability.
- The crystallization of this liability for the relevant year was a key aspect of the dispute.
In the judgment, the Court noted that issues 1 and 4 were previously decided in a case involving the same assessee, leading to the dismissal of these grounds of appeal based on precedent. For issues 2 and 3, which were related and also previously adjudicated upon in another case, the Court similarly dismissed the grounds of appeal based on established legal decisions. Consequently, the Court found no new questions of law arising from the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1184
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of website development and maintenance cost.
2. Disallowance of computer software expenses.
3. Disallowance of royalty expenses for original sound track (OST) rights.
4. Disallowance of royalty claim made u/s 40(a)(i).
5. Disallowance of royalty expenses for studio album recordings, album licensing, and concert recording.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Website Development and Maintenance Cost:
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading pre-recorded music, claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,95,028/- for website development. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) treated this as capital expenditure, providing enduring benefits. The Tribunal, referencing CIT Vs. Indian Visit.Com (P) Ltd., ruled that such expenditure is revenue in nature as the websites have a short life and do not provide enduring benefits. The addition by the AO and CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
2. Disallowance of Computer Software Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 12,52,146/- for computer software expenses, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in M/s. Amway India Enterprises Vs. DCIT, which laid down principles to determine if software expenditure is capital or revenue. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue in light of these principles and decide afresh after hearing the assessee.
3. Disallowance of Royalty Expenses for Original Sound Track (OST) Rights:
The AO treated Rs. 6,83,27,000/- paid for OST rights as capital expenditure, allowing only 20% as revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal referenced Tips Cassettes & Records Co. Vs. ACIT and other cases, concluding that such expenditure in the assessee's line of business should be considered revenue expenditure. The Tribunal directed the deduction of the entire amount.
4. Disallowance of Royalty Claim Made u/s 40(a)(i):
The AO allowed only 20% of Rs. 2,10,27,065/- claimed u/s 40(a)(i) for royalty paid to non-residents, treating the rest as unreasonable. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal found the AO's assumption that the assessee paid royalty based on MRP incorrect and without basis. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.
5. Disallowance of Royalty Expenses for Studio Album Recordings, Album Licensing, and Concert Recording:
The AO disallowed 80% of Rs. 9,55,42,171/- paid for studio album recordings, album licensing, and concert recording, considering it exaggerated. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's disallowance and referenced judicial precedents supporting the assessee's claim. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of disallowances and re-examination of computer software expenses. The order was pronounced on 9th September 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1183
Issues Involved:
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Summary:
Issue 1: Invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The assessee, a public company, declared a total income of Rs. 63,07,481 for the assessment year 2006-07. During scrutiny, the AO noticed that the assessee had received Rs. 60,27,520 as dividend income, which was claimed as exempt. The AO asked for details of expenses incurred to earn this dividend income. The assessee claimed no expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend income. However, the AO, after examining the books of accounts, did not accept this claim and made a disallowance of Rs. 13,91,511 u/s 14A, using a formula to calculate the proportionate expenses attributable to the exempt income.
The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), arguing that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income and that the formula used by the AO was arbitrary. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the disallowance was in line with the method prescribed in Rule 8D and supported by precedents.
Issue 2: Application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
The assessee contended that Rule 8D, applied by the AO, was not applicable for the assessment year 2006-07 as it was effective from the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT, which stated that Rule 8D is applicable prospectively.
The Tribunal observed that the AO invoked Section 14A and applied Rule 8D, which is effective from the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., which clarified that Rule 8D is not retrospective. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to compute the disallowance using a reasonable method in line with the guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the AO was directed to re-evaluate the disallowance by applying a reasonable method, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in accordance with the guidelines from the Bombay High Court's judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1182
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the learned CIT (A)-I, Surat erred in allowing the appeal on the ground that Shri Amratbhai P. Prajapati negated his statement.
2. Whether the learned CIT (A)-I, Surat erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,14,067/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the IT Act on account of unexplained expenses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the learned CIT (A)-I, Surat erred in allowing the appeal on the ground that Shri Amratbhai P. Prajapati negated his statement:
The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had purchased goods from Bhagyodaya Enterprises and Bhavna Trading Co., both proprietary concerns of Shri Amratbhai P. Prajapati, who issued bogus sale bills. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the IT Act and issued a notice under Section 148. The AO noted that Shri Prajapati had admitted to issuing accommodating bills without actual business transactions and that the cheque payments were returned in cash after deducting a small commission.
The assessee argued that the purchases were genuine, supported by confirmations, PAN details, and bank statements showing payments by account payee cheques. The AO, however, insisted that the purchases were bogus, as Shri Prajapati did not have adequate facilities to support the sales and had admitted to issuing bogus bills. The AO also noted that the assessee failed to produce Shri Prajapati for cross-examination despite repeated requests.
The learned CIT (A) disagreed with the AO, noting that the statement of Shri Prajapati could not be treated as evidence since it was negated by his confirmation of accounts under Section 133(6). The CIT (A) emphasized that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Prajapati, making the statement inadmissible as evidence. The CIT (A) relied on several judicial precedents, including CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. and CIT vs. Arjundas Surinder Kumar & Co., which established that statements not subjected to cross-examination could not be used against the assessee.
2. Whether the learned CIT (A)-I, Surat erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,14,067/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the IT Act on account of unexplained expenses:
The AO added Rs. 76,14,067/- as unexplained expenses under Section 69C, arguing that the purchases from Bhagyodaya Enterprises and Bhavna Trading Co. were bogus. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine, supported by quantitative details, confirmations, and bank statements. The AO, however, dismissed these arguments, citing Shri Prajapati's statement and the lack of supporting evidence such as transportation charges, weighing slips, and delivery challans.
The learned CIT (A) found that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to support the addition. The CIT (A) noted that the assessee maintained complete quantitative records, and the purchases were properly recorded in the books of accounts. The CIT (A) also highlighted that the AO failed to prove that the cash withdrawn by Shri Prajapati was returned to the assessee. The CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Adinath Industries, which held that additions based on mere presumptions without evidence could not be sustained.
The CIT (A) concluded that the statement of Shri Prajapati had no evidentiary value and that the AO's addition was based on conjecture and surmises. The CIT (A) emphasized that the assessee's books of accounts were correct, and the purchases were genuine. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the learned CIT (A), confirming that the statement of Shri Prajapati could not be used as evidence against the assessee without cross-examination. The Tribunal also agreed that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the addition under Section 69C. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the deletion of the addition by the learned CIT (A) was confirmed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1181
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,79,878/- on account of unexplained opening capital.
2. Addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 1,79,878/- on account of unexplained opening capital
The assessee, a partner in the brick kiln business of M/s Ram Gopal Maheshwari B.K.O. until 31.03.1996, claimed that the amount of Rs. 1,79,878/- introduced as capital in his new business was withdrawn from the said firm. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) was not satisfied with this explanation and made the addition as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee provided evidence of his income from salary and interest from the firm, along with income tax returns and account statements. The Tribunal found the explanation plausible and noted that the Department failed to provide contrary evidence. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, it was held that the A.O. is not obliged to treat the source of investment as income in every case. The addition of Rs. 1,79,878/- was deleted.
Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits
The A.O. noted that the assessee introduced Rs. 3,50,000/- as capital in his new business on different dates and claimed this amount was transferred from his HUF account. The A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation and made the addition. The assessee provided balance sheets and income tax returns of the HUF, showing sufficient funds. However, the A.O. found discrepancies and noted that the assessee failed to produce books of accounts and relevant parties. The Tribunal found the explanation not entirely plausible and concluded that the assessee could have taken only Rs. 1,75,000/- from the HUF. Consequently, the addition was partly deleted, sustaining Rs. 1,75,000/-.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, deleting the addition of Rs. 1,79,878/- and sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- out of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.09.2010).
-
2010 (9) TMI 1180
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A)'s order deleting disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act for interest on late payment from debtors and income from scrap sale.
Summary:
The appeal by Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act for interest on late payment from debtors and income from scrap sale. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing texturised yarn, claimed deduction u/s.80IB in the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on other income sources like late payment charges, scrap sales, and interest on FDR. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction based on precedents, including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow deduction u/s.80IB for scrap sales and late payment charges but disallow it for interest income from FDR. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing that interest on delayed payment and income from scrap sale are eligible for deduction u/s.80IB as per relevant court decisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction u/s.80IB for interest on late payment from debtors and income from scrap sale, based on relevant court precedents, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1179
Issues involved: The issues involved in this judgment are related to the grant of interest under section 244A of the Income Tax Act on self-assessment tax paid by the assessee and the entitlement to interest on interest under the same section.
Grant of Interest u/s 244A on Self-Assessment Tax:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the case where the Assessing Officer did not grant interest on self-assessment tax paid by the assessee, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant interest on the excess payment of self-assessment tax from the date it was paid by the assessee, relying on relevant legal precedents and CBDT Circulars. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the legislative intent of section 244A is to compensate the assessee for the use of funds by the Government. The Tribunal also distinguished a previous High Court judgment cited by the revenue, stating that it did not mandate interest on self-assessment tax only from the date of regular assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed grounds 2 to 7 raised by the revenue.
Entitlement to Interest on Interest u/s 244A:
Regarding the CIT(A)'s direction to grant interest on interest, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Sandvik Asia v CIT, which stated that the assessee is entitled to interest on the amount to be refunded under section 244(1) from the date it ought to be granted. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to quantify the period for which interest has to be paid on the interest due to the assessee, based on the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, ground no. 8 raised by the revenue was also dismissed.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) regarding the grant of interest under section 244A on self-assessment tax and interest on interest.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1178
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of interest amount by the Assessing Officer.
2. Addition of unaccounted cash found during search.
Disallowance of interest amount:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 87,493 made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest. The Assessing Officer contended that the cash in hand, which was substantial, was not used for business purposes. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest based on various reasons, including lack of evidence for the cash being used for business needs. However, the assessee explained that the cash balance was necessary for routine and extraordinary expenses related to the business. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention, stating that borrowed funds were indeed used for business purposes, and allowed the interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner, noting that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes.
Addition of unaccounted cash found during search:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted cash found during a search. The cash was seized during a search at a railway station, and the Assessing Officer made the addition due to lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the cash. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleted the addition, stating that the cash was duly accounted for as per the cash book of the Mumbai Office. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner, emphasizing that the cash was part of the cash balance as per the books of the Mumbai Office and was supported by evidence found during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on doubts and suspicion, and upheld the decision to delete the addition.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1177
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income as "Capital Gains" vs. "Business Income."
2. Applicability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for filing a revised return.
Summary:
1. Classification of Income:
The assessee, a Canadian trust and tax resident, initially filed its return declaring income of Rs. 9,28,49,984/- as "Capital Gains" from the sale of securities in India and paid tax accordingly. Subsequently, relying on AAR rulings in the cases of XYZ/ABC Equity Fund and Fidelity Advisors Series VIII, the assessee filed a revised return claiming the income as "Business Income" and sought a refund, arguing that it had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and thus, under Article 7 read with Article 5 of the DTAA, its income was not taxable in India. The Assessing Officer, however, assessed the income as "Capital Gains" and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for making a false claim in the revised return.
2. Applicability of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, noting that the revised return was filed based on judicial rulings and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had made full disclosure in the original and revised returns and during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessment was based on a difference of opinion and not on any concealment of facts. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders and the ITAT Mumbai's decision in Variable Products Funds, to hold that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was leviable.
Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and had a bonafide belief based on judicial rulings that its income could be considered as "Business Income." The ITAT referred to the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., which held that merely claiming a deduction not accepted by the department does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 3,06,40,490/-.
Order:
The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30th September 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1176
Issues involved: Assessment of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for shifting expenses, legal and professional charges, deferred revenue expenditure, and loss on transfer of asset.
Details of the judgment:
1. Jurisdictional issue regarding initiation of penalty proceedings:
The appeal was filed against the concealment penalty levied on various items for the assessment year 1999-2000. The counsel for the assessee raised the issue of no satisfaction recorded in the assessment order regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings. The contention was that the satisfaction was not evident from the assessment order itself. The AO had observed in the assessment order that "Penalty proceedings, u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately." The Tribunal referred to the requirement of section 271(1)(c) which mandates the AO to be satisfied during the proceedings regarding concealment of income. It was noted that the satisfaction must be discernible from the assessment order. In this case, the Tribunal found no prima facie satisfaction of the AO for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order, as required by law. Therefore, the grievance of the assessee was accepted, and the penalty imposed was set aside as it was void ab initio due to the absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order.
2. Conclusion:
As the penalty was set aside due to the lack of satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, no other issue remained for consideration. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty imposed was overturned.
This judgment highlights the importance of the AO being satisfied regarding concealment of income during the assessment proceedings, as mandated by section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1175
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and timeliness of the order u/s 263.
2. Erroneous and prejudicial nature of the AO's order u/s 147.
3. Mechanical manner of the CIT's order.
4. Non-consideration of claims on merits by the CIT.
Summary:
1. Jurisdiction and Timeliness of the Order u/s 263:
The assessee contended that the order made u/s 263 was without jurisdiction and barred by time. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under scrutiny was passed pursuant to re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147. The subject matter for reasons recorded under sec. 148 was the payment made by the assessee company to its parent company without deducting tax at source. The Tribunal held that the CIT's order u/s 263 was beyond jurisdiction as the issues raised in the notice had no connection to the reasons recorded for initiating re-assessment proceedings u/s 147.
2. Erroneous and Prejudicial Nature of the AO's Order u/s 147:
The CIT found the AO's order u/s 143(3)/147 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on three counts: provision for warranty/guarantee, provision for contractual obligations, and prior period expenses. The Tribunal observed that these issues were not part of the reasons recorded for initiating re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 and thus could not form part of the re-assessment.
3. Mechanical Manner of the CIT's Order:
The assessee argued that the CIT passed the order in a mechanical manner without considering the arguments on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT directed the AO to verify the claims afresh without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions.
4. Non-Consideration of Claims on Merits by the CIT:
The Tribunal examined the merits of the issues raised by the CIT:
- Provision for Warranty/Guarantee and Contractual Obligations: The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. vs. CIT, holding that such provisions are deductible business expenditures.
- Provision No Longer Required: The Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 1,85,36,298/- was already added back by the assessee in the return of income.
- Prior Period Expenses: The Tribunal upheld the assessee's practice of booking expenses on receipt of bills, consistent with earlier years.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the CIT's order u/s 263 was beyond jurisdiction and the issues raised were already settled in favor of the assessee. The decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 17th September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1174
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 22,41,141 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of assessment under section 153A without issuing notice under section 143(2).
3. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 73,50,000 under section 69 for investment in a plot.
4. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under section 68 related to bank account credits.
5. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 cash seized from an employee.
6. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 each for investments in a plot at Narela and a flat in Vikrant Tower.
7. Deletion of additions related to investments and transactions in M/s Pragati Packaging.
8. Addition of Rs. 3,87,364 for unaccounted investment in jewelry.
9. Addition of Rs. 50,000 for expenditure incurred at Tivoli Garden.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 22,41,141 under section 69:
The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 22,41,141 added by the AO under section 69 for investment in a property. The CIT(A) found that the property belonged to the assessee's wife, who had disclosed it in her returns. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no evidence suggested the assessee made the investment.
2. Validity of assessment under section 153A without issuing notice under section 143(2):
The assessee contended that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of a notice under section 143(2). The Tribunal held that the AO's issuance of two questionnaires sufficed as notice under section 143(2), fulfilling the statutory requirement. The reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Hotel Blue Moon was discussed, but the Tribunal concluded the requirements were met.
3. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 73,50,000 under section 69 for investment in a plot:
The AO added Rs. 73,50,000 for investment in a plot allotted by HUDA, which the assessee claimed belonged to M/s Jyoti Chadha, HUF. The CIT(A) found the property belonged to the HUF, which was a regular taxpayer, and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, granting liberty to the revenue to take action against the HUF.
4. Deletion of the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 under section 68 related to bank account credits:
The AO added Rs. 10,00,000 under section 68 for unexplained credits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) accepted additional evidence showing the amounts were received from Pragati International Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the AO did not dispute the evidence.
5. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 cash seized from an employee:
The AO added Rs. 10,00,000 found with the assessee's employee, which the assessee claimed belonged to his nephew. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding the claim lacked credibility. The Tribunal agreed, noting the belated claim by the nephew appeared to be an afterthought.
6. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 each for investments in a plot at Narela and a flat in Vikrant Tower:
For the Narela plot, the CIT(A) found it belonged to the company, not the assessee, and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision. For the Vikrant Tower flat, the CIT(A) found the assessee's wife had a half share, and the investment was disclosed in her returns. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting the evidence supported the wife's ownership.
7. Deletion of additions related to investments and transactions in M/s Pragati Packaging:
The AO added amounts for capital, loans, and purchases related to M/s Pragati Packaging. The CIT(A) found the investments were made by the company and the assessee's son, not the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting the evidence showed the assessee had no connection with the firm.
8. Addition of Rs. 3,87,364 for unaccounted investment in jewelry:
The AO added Rs. 3,87,364 for unexplained jewelry, accepting only part of the assessee's explanation. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding the evidence insufficient. The Tribunal agreed, noting the contradictions in the assessee's claims and lack of supporting evidence.
9. Addition of Rs. 50,000 for expenditure incurred at Tivoli Garden:
The AO added Rs. 50,000 for a receipt found at the assessee's residence, which the assessee claimed belonged to his niece. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding the explanation unconvincing. The Tribunal agreed, noting the onus was on the assessee to provide evidence, which was not met.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the revenue and the cross appeals and cross objections of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1173
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deletion of addition of suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 19,61,870 during Block Period 1.4.1989 to 7.12.1999.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The respondent-assessee, engaged in ship breaking, was subject to search action u/s 132(1) of the Act in the case of Madhupuri Group. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 158BC read with 158BD against the assessee based on statements regarding accommodative entries of loans and purchase/sales by Shri Mahendra H. Shah. The AO made an addition of Rs. 19,61,870 on account of suppressed sales, which was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal.
2. Assailing the Tribunal's order, the appellant-Revenue reiterated the AO's reasoning, emphasizing the lack of specific evidence linking the assessee to bogus sales. The Tribunal noted that no material was found during the search indicating higher sale consideration than recorded in the books. The addition was based on estimates and assumptions, not concrete evidence from the search.
3. The Tribunal highlighted that additions u/s 158BD can only be made based on material seized during the search or related inquiries. Since no evidence of undisclosed income was found during the search, and sale consideration was duly recorded in the books, the Tribunal held that block assessment couldn't replace regular assessment. The reliance on Shri Mahendra H. Shah's statement, which did not mention the assessee, was deemed insufficient to justify the addition.
4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principle that block assessment cannot substitute regular assessment without concrete evidence of undisclosed income found during the search. As no legal error was found in the Tribunal's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed for lack of any substantial question of law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of suppressed sales was upheld based on the lack of concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged misconduct during the search conducted in the Madhupuri Group case.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1172
Issues involved: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding recovery of sales tax, interest, penalty, and attachment orders by Sales Tax Department.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Recovery of sales tax, interest, penalty, etc.
The petitioners sought a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from them related to Arunoday Mills. They also requested to quash the attachment of properties and UCO Bank account by the Sales Tax Department. The Court issued notice and directed maintenance of status quo. The petitioners' advocate proposed an amicable arrangement to remove the attachment on the land for sale, considering the pending appeals before the Tribunal and the granted stay against recovery. The Court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 4 crores with the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Rajkot, for the removal of attachments on the land and bank account.
Issue 2: Attachment of properties by Sales Tax Department
The petitioners' advocate highlighted the outstanding liability of Rs. 9,54,39,601, of which Rs. 2,76,55,142 had been paid. The petitioners intended to sell the land to discharge their liabilities. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 4 crores with the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Rajkot, for the removal of attachments on the land and bank account. The removal of attachments was subject to the final outcome of the matters pending before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was to decide independently without influence from the Court's order. The order was an interim arrangement, and both parties were allowed to present their contentions before the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the petition with directions for the petitioners to deposit Rs. 4 crores to remove attachments on the land and bank account, subject to the Tribunal's final decision. The order emphasized that it was interim and did not delve into the merits of the case, allowing both parties to present their arguments before the Tribunal.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1170
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges the order discharging the company from the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) due to positive net worth despite incomplete implementation of the sanctioned scheme and lack of necessary concessions from the Government of Rajasthan.
Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioner company, previously known as M/s. Paliwal Mini Steels (I) Limited, was registered under SICA and had a sanctioned scheme (SS-02) implemented, resulting in a positive net worth by the financial year ending on 31.3.05.
2. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) discharged the company from SICA as it was no longer considered a sick industrial company.
3. The petitioner was aggrieved as the concessions and reliefs under SS-02 were not granted by the Government of Rajasthan, leading to a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.
4. The Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) upheld the discharge, stating that unimplemented provisions of SS-02 could not be enforced after the company's discharge from SICA due to positive net worth.
5. The petitioner argued that the sanctioned scheme must be implemented in its entirety to prevent a sick company from losing benefits, citing Section 18 of SICA and a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the authority's role in scheme implementation.
6. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing that a sanctioned scheme must be implemented fully to avoid absurd outcomes where a company gains benefits without fulfilling obligations.
7. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent, the High Court quashed the AAIFR and BIFR orders, directing the matter to be listed before BIFR for monitoring and complete implementation of SS-02.
8. The writ petition was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs, and no further directions were deemed necessary post the petition's disposal.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1169
Prayer to quash inter-departmental communications - certain members of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti had sold their land to M/s Savy Homes (P) Ltd. who in turn further sold the land to the present appellants vide sale deed dated 15th June, 2006. Appellants further claim to have applied for sanction of plan for construction of buildings and the same was accorded by the statutory authorities under the Municipal Law. Appellants also claim to have developed the land - as submitted possession of the land in dispute had never been taken by the State and after commencement of the Act 1999, the proceedings stood abated. Therefore, the question of interference with the land in dispute does not arise - whether the appellants have any justifiable cause to approach the court?
HELD THAT:- No proceedings had ever been initiated against the appellants by the authorities under the Act 1976. Secondly, the State authorities, the respondent herein, failed miserably to perform their statutory duties and it appears that they could not muster the courage to take the actual physical possession of the land in dispute in spite of issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act 1976 in the year 1993. More so, the so-called authorities could issue notices under Section 10 of the Act 1976 after a lapse of twelve years as the assessment of surplus land became final in 1981 itself. Such an indifferent attitude on the part of the authorities is not commendable rather it is condemnable, but that does not mean that court should decide only the effect of repealing Act 1999 in these proceedings at the behest of the appellants in absence of the original tenure holders and subsequent transferees inasmuch as in the fact-situation of this case where the appellants, for the reasons best known to them, did not consider it proper to place either of the sale deeds on record.
Examination of the correctness of the aforesaid finding at the behest of the appellants is not desirable for the reasons that they did not disclose even the date of notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act 1976. More so, the user of the land could not be changed in view of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act 1976. The alleged transfer by the recorded tenure holders in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti for the purpose of construction of residential houses was totally illegal.
The sale deed in favour of Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti dated 20th April, 1982 is not on record. There is nothing to establish whether the sale deed was a genuine, forged or fabricated document. Merely making a statement that it was a registered sale deed and, therefore, it was genuine, cannot be accepted. There is no such presumption in law. There is nothing to ascertain who had been the transferors and who were the transferees therein. None of the subsequent sale deeds is on record. Therefore, the genuineness of either of the alleged sale deeds can be tested. There are no pleadings as under what circumstances the sale deeds have been executed and as to whether the original tenure holders have received any consideration.
It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas.
The present appeal does not present any special feature warranting exercise of equitable discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellants. The equity jurisdiction is exercised to promote honesty and not to frustrate the legitimate rights of the other parties.
It is settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits.
In the instant case, as we have observed that the alleged sale deed dated 20th April, 1982 in favour of Mayur Sahkari Avas Samiti has been a void transaction, all subsequent transactions have merely to be ignored.
............
|
9911796707
