|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1912 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 1856
Interest on FDs - as per DR definitely it is an income earned by the assessee but it has not disclosed it in its return - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the above that as per TDS certificates , the assessee has earned an interest income of ₹ 1,01,72,545/-but it has admitted ₹ 87.78 lakh only as interest income in its Return. Thus, this issue requires verification & reconciliation and hence we set aside this issue to the AO . The AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee would decide this matter in accordance with law.
Negative cash balance - CIT(A) after considering normal trading pattern of the assessee prior and subsequent to March, the remand report and the purchase statement obtained from PEC Ltd etc held that if purchases and sales were entered as and when they took place, the negative cash balance would not have arisen - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the above that the CIT (A) has examined this issue and drawn due conclusion. The Revenue has not brought any material to assail such conclusion and hence we confirm the decision of the CIT (A).
Undisclosed turnover - CIT (A) has examined the issue and found that the turnover made by M/s Spectra Investments on behalf of the assessee exceeded the cash turn over of the assessee at ₹ 7.06 crore as against ₹ 8.03 crore adopted by AO. He found the % of GP in this line of business .He has held that what to be taxed in such situation is only the profit element and not the entire turnover as the deduction for the cost of goods has necessarily to be allowed - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the facts stated by the AO in his remand report dt 28.9.2010. Since this issue this issue requires verification & reconciliation we set aside this issue to the AO . The AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee would decide this matter in accordance with law.
Addition on account of exchange fluctuation earned by the assessee - CIT (A) held that the assessee had incurred a net loss on account of exchange difference and deleted the entire addition - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has not properly appreciated the facts stated by the AO in his remand report dt 01.03.2011. Since this issue this issue requires verification & reconciliation we set aside this issue to the AO . The AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee would decide this matter in accordance with law.
Addition on short accounted interest income - CIT(A) called for a remand report and after examining it held that the ledger extract of the account copy of the assessee in the books of PEC Ltd is to be considered to arrive out the correct amount of income earned by the assesseee on the FDs from PEC Ltd and on such basis found that the assessee earned interest income but admitted in its books at ₹ 5,45,45,971/- only and hence confirmed the addition at ₹ 29,45,468/-only. - HELD THAT:- Since the Revenue has not brought any material to assail the conclusion of the CIT (A), we confirm the decision of the CIT(A).
Unaccounted investment in purchase and sale of 85 Kgs of gold u/s 69 - Whether CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition and it is therefore prayed that AO's action may be upheld? - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) examined the materials furnished during remand proceedings and arrived the above conclusion. This being so, the Revenue has not brought any material to assail the above findings and hence we confirm the decision of the CIT (A).
Addition u/s 69A - Cash found in search - HELD THAT:- Before the CIT (A), the assesseee pleaded that it had cash on hand as per its books as on 28.01.2005 at ₹ 2,62,65,903.77/-and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant is in possession of unexplained cash. The CIT (A) called for a remand report and the AO was silent on this issue. He held that the fact remains that the very cash book with which the AO relied upon to conclude the assessments show a cash balance of ₹ 2,62,65,903.77/- as on the date of search and this fact has not been denied or controverted by the AO and hence the CIT (A) deleted the addition. Thus, the Revenue has not brought any material to assail the conclusion of the CIT (A), we confirm the decision of the CIT (A).
-
2016 (12) TMI 1855
Maintainability of petition - application dismissed on the ground that the Appellants had applied before the stage of issuance of process so to be issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- In the present case a fact finding investigation was directed by the impugned order. Consequently, FIR was registered against Appellants No. 2 to 4 and against RM (Vinod Koper). The accused under Indian Criminal Legal System, unless proved guilty shall always be given a reasonable space and liberty to defend himself in accordance with the law. Further, it is always expected from a person accused of an offence pleading not guilty that he shall co-operate and participate in criminal proceedings or proceedings of that nature before a court of law, or other Tribunal before whom he may be accused of an 'offence' as defined in Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, i.e., an act punishable under the Penal Code or any special or local law. At the same time, courts, taking cognizance of the offence or conducting a trial while issuing any order, are expected to apply their mind and the order must be a well reasoned one.
The Appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the Appellants challenged the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants after summarizing their arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the context of the fundamental rights of the Appellants under the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused grave inequities to the Appellants. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of the process of law. However, it appears to us that this order Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation.
There are no flaws in the impugned order or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the petitions filed by the Appellants before the High Court - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1854
Characterization of income - subvention received by the Assessee - Company from its parent Company in Germany in a situation where the Assessee - Company was making losses - revenue or capital receipt - whether subvention was capital or revenue receipt, was sought to be answered by the High Court by making a reference to two decisions of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. [1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited [2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The view expressed by this Court that unless the grant-in-aid received by an Assessee is utilized for acquisition of an asset, the same must be understood to be in the nature of a revenue receipt was held by the High Court to be a principle of law applicable to all situations. The aforesaid view tends to overlook the fact that in both Ponni Sugars (supra) and Sahney Steel (supra) the subsidies received were in the nature of grant-in-aid from public funds and not by way of voluntary contribution by the parent Company as in the present cases.
The above apart, the voluntary payments made by the parent Company to its loss making Indian company can also be understood to be payments made in order to protect the capital investment of the Assessee Company. If that is so, we will have no hesitation to hold that the payments made to the Assessee Company by the parent Company for Assessment Years in question cannot be held to be revenue receipts. We also find such a view in a recent pronouncement in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation of India Ltd. [2014 49 Taxmann.com 488 Delhi (Delhi High Court) with which we are in respectful agreement.
We allow the present appeals; set aside the order of the High Court and answer the liability of the Assessee for the Assessment Years in question in the above manner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1853
Validity of acquisition proceedings - declaration also sought that the acquisition has lapsed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as compensation amount was not deposited nor physical possession of the land was taken - HELD THAT:- The land in question is a small piece of 7 guntas of land situated at Bommanahalli village in Bengaluru South Taluk. Therefore, question of BDA now proceeding with the acquisition by passing an award taking over possession and making any layout to distribute the sites at this stage, does not arise. After a lapse of 30 years, BDA cannot proceed with the acquisition by passing an award as it would result in arbitrary exercise of power by the BDA, in as much as, the market value to be determined and compensation payable would be reckoned as it existed on the date of publication of the preliminary notification during the year 1984. Payment of compensation on that basis to the land owners would be illusory.
The acquisition having not been completed, no award having been passed nor possession of the land having been taken for the last three decades, the entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed as having been abandoned by the BDA and the State Government - the principle that transferee of land after the publication of preliminary notification cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the acquisition, cannot be made applicable to a case where the acquisition itself has been abandoned and has stood lapsed due to efflux of time on account of the omission and inaction on the part of the acquiring authority, particularly because, it is because of the lapse of time and the abandonment of acquisition, right accrues to the original owner to deal with his property including by way of sale and the purchaser will acquire right to protect his interest.
It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 44/7 measuring 7 guntas of Bommanahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk, have stood lapsed and have been abandoned - Petition allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1852
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- ITAT analysed the facts and based upon the material on record deduced firstly, that similar transactions were not treated as advances but were in respect of third parties and the explanation that they were trade credits were accepted.
The ITAT, therefore, was of the view that there was no loan to the assessee in the circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that the plain text of Section 2(22)(e) does not authorise the treatment of the amounts as a loan to a shareholder since concededly the amounts were not received by the assessee, an individual. See ANKITECH PVT LTD. & OTHERS [2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law arises.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1851
Levy of Education cess in addition to duty under the compounded levy scheme - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of Commissioner Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs. Shri Ram Steel Industries [2010 (7) TMI 416 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that education cess and higher education cess cannot be said to be part of the compounded levy determined under the compounded levy scheme in terms of Notification No. 34/2001-C.E., dated 28-6-2001 read with Rule 15 of the said Rules, and Education Cess to be levied on compounded levy.
Demand upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1850
Clandestine removal - PVC insulated wires armoured/unarmoured cables - retraction of statements - appellant produced different charts pointed out various mistakes in calculating the duty demand and the same has not been considered - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is the contention of the appellant that during the course of adjudication they produced various charts for calculation of demand duty and the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority. In fact, those calculations given by the appellant are required to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Moreover, the defences raised by the appellant are to be considered by the adjudicating authority in true spirits and after considering the explanations and chart given by the appellant. As, the adjudicating authority was required to give due consideration of the records produced by the appellant but the same has not been given, in that circumstances, the impugned order deserves de-merits, therefore, the same is to be set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration the grievance raised by the appellant - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1849
Nature of expenditure - power and fuel charges - assessee bear cost of additional power infrastructure to be established by electricity supplier - AR submitted that when the outgo did not create any asset for the assessee it was a revenue expenditure allowable u/s.37(1) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that there was a agreement between assessee and M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd by which latter leased out a property to the assessee. M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd was to supply electricity to the assessee for the factory in the leased property based on a shared services agreement.
M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd had given notice to the assessee for terminating the shared supply agreement w.e.f. 1st January, 2009 is also not doubted. Electricity was an essential input for carrying on the manufacturing activity of the assessee and there can be no two opinions on this. To ensure supply of uninterrupted electricity, assessee had to agree with M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd to part finance the total cost of additional power infrastructure to be established by M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd would not have supplied electricity after 1st January, 2009 but for assessee agreeing to part finance the cost of the project for establishing additional power infrastructure - additional power infrastructure created was the sole property of M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd and assessee had no ownership over any part of the said asset.
The only benefit assessee derived was supply of uninterrupted electricity, without which it could have not functioned. In this situation, the said expenditure in our opinion can only be treated as revenue expenditure which ensured continued electricity supply. The payment did not result in any enduring benefit but only enabled the assessee to carry on its day to day activities. Just because additional power infrastructure was an asset in the hand of the M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd, we cannot say that amount given by the assessee to M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd was a capital outgo. The expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee and it did not create any asset for the assessee. It only ensured continued supply of electricity without interruption. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the expenditure was rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue outgo. Lower authorities in our opinion fell in error in disallowing the claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1848
Murder - Respondent No. 1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu - Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act - HELD THAT:- The Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the Respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the Respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court, as stated above and thereby aided and assisted the Respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice.
The Respondent guilty of having violated the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev guilty for having helped the Respondent in his attempts and thereby obstructing administration of justice. Having held so, we could straightaway have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The Respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the company that owns the hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are medical professionals with sufficient standing, the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment. In the circumstances, we direct presence of these three contemnors on January 2, 2017.
Role of the police officials - HELD THAT:- The conduct exhibited by the concerned police officials in not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial Court calls for strict administrative action. The actions in that behalf have already been initiated and for the present we rest content by observing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end and the guilty shall be brought to book. We request the Director General of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to look into the matter and ensure that the departmental proceedings are taken to logical end at the earliest. The status report/action taken report in that behalf shall be filed in this Court within three months from the date of this judgment.
Application disposed off.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1847
Addition on account of estimation of profit @ 6% of sales - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2015 (6) TMI 1157 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition made on this count. Accordingly, ground are allowed.
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80U - HELD THAT:- Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. As the assessee himself withdrawn the claim before the AO, the CIT (A) was right in rejecting the assessee’s claim and hence, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds raised in this regard.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1846
Addition u/s. 2(22)(e) - assessee was the major share holder/director of the company and also had entered into financial transaction with Kadam Exports (P) Ltd - non deduction of TDS - ITAT cancelling the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(A) - HELD THAT:- As decided in SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIO-TECH PVT. LTD.[2016 (1) TMI 84 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions are in the form of current accommodation adjustment entries. Commissioner therefore, held that the transactions were not in the nature of loans and advances. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the CIT (Appeals) and held that the amounts were not in the nature of Inter Corporate Deposits and were therefore, not to be treated as loans or advances as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
The issue is substantially one of appreciation of facts. When the CIT(Appeals) as well as Tribunal concurrently held that looking to large number of adjustment entries in the accounts between two entities, the amounts were not in the nature of loan or deposit, but merely adjustments, application of section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (12) TMI 1845
Changing of status of the assessee while processing return under Section 143(1) - As in the course of processing the returns, the Assessing Officer changed the status of the assessee as AOP and levied tax under Section 164(1) of the Act at maximum marginal rate - HELD THAT:- The assessee admittedly filed their returns of income electronically and the same were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Section 143(1) of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to make prima facie adjustment on the basis of the material available on record. Changing of status is something outside the purview of the prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that changing of status of the assessees cannot be made while processing return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the same are set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to take up the matter for scrutiny as provided under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Appeals of the assessees stand allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1844
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- Considering the nature of the question raised in the petition, both the sides agree that the petition is required to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The respondents seek time of three weeks to file replies.
Stand over to 9th January, 2017.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1843
Establishment of NCLT Bench in the State of Kerala - suitable place for establishing an independent NCLT bench - Seeking direction to the respondents to continue hearing of Company Cases having jurisdiction in State of Kerala by the Hon'ble High Court till NCLT Bench is established at Ernakulam for hearing of Company Cases - establish NCLT Bench at Ernakulam on a time bound basis in the interest of justice - According to the petitioners, since a large number of cases under the Companies Act such as, company claims, company petitions, company applications, company suits, company cases, adjudication appeals, connected criminal complaints, miscellaneous company applications etc. are pending consideration before this Court, establishment of independent and separate NCLT bench for the State of Kerala at Kochi is absolutely necessary and if Tribunals are not established in each State, the basic objective with which, NCLTs are being established, that is, to speed up the company cases, will not be fulfilled - HELD THAT:- Though the aforementioned submissions appear to be attractive at the first instance, they cannot be accepted for giving a direction to the respondents to establish NCLT bench in any particular State. It is for the authorities concerned to take a decision in the matter. This Court cannot frame guidelines or sit as an appellate authority to direct the policy makers to frame policy in a particular manner. It is for the authorities concerned to take a decision in respect of establishment of benches at a particular place or State.
Since it is for the respondent authorities to take a decision in the matter and as this Court will not normally interfere with the policy decision of the State, we decline to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. It is open for the petitioners or the affected persons to make representations before the appropriate Government for establishment of NCLT bench in the State of Kerala, if they so choose.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1842
Revenue recognition - interest on the mobilization amount claimed by the assessee - hybrid method of accounting adopted over the years, the interest amount had to be treated as income - HELD THAT:- The entire matter is contentious in the sense that the third party - RPCL - which was awarded the contract claimed that it had performed it in accordance with the agreement with the parties. The assessee, however, felt otherwise and terminated the contract. There could be several likely outcomes in these proceedings – many of them possibility impinging upon the rights of the assessee to receive advance amount itself along with interest either in whole or in part. In these circumstances, the ITAT’s conclusions that there was no crystallized right to receive any particular amount or amounts, cannot be faulted.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1841
Transfer of shares - Reference of CP to arbitration for the parties - dispute resolution scheme - sum and substance of the petition is that the petitioner needs reinstatement of her as director of the company and for setting aside the impugned sale of the property - role of petitioner - in the company after execution of the SPA dated 2nd November, 2015 - termination of the SPA by the petitioner - applicability of section 8 of Arbitration Act - scope of section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the SPA, it is evident that there is a clause for shifting of the registered office, accordingly the registered office has been shifted, the petitioner also resigned from the company on 2nd May, 2015. There is also a clause 4.3 of the SPA with an undertaking that the petitioner is no longer associated with day-to-day business of the company, she shall not be responsible to any business decision except to the liability due to her shareholding.
The petitioner is bound by the SPA reciting that she would not be associated with the day-to-day business of the company from 1st October, 2015 and she is not responsible to any of the decisions of the company since 1st October, 2015 except to the extent of the liability due to her shareholding. The respondents already tendered to make payment towards first tranche of payment and for transfer of first tranche of sale shares before first transaction closing date, i.e., 1st October, 2016, through the letter dated 26th September, 2016 along with Xerox copy of DD for an amount towards "first tranche purchase on price" - For the petitioner herself agreed to be away from the affairs of the company on execution of SPA, then, she could not now ask for her re-entering into the company on the ground that the SPA between them has been terminated. When the termination clause has been envisaging to be invoked on mutual consent, the petitioner would not get any occasion to terminate the agreement unless default has been committed by the respondents side as mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner could have been permitted to have participatory role in R1-company after 2nd November, 2015 basing on the shareholding of her. Accordingly, there could not be any merit in the argument that the petitioner was left in dark in relation to the affairs of the company.
It appears that the petitioner felt that she is aggrieved for the Bank loan has not been paid and financial statements not provided. Other aspects of allegation of scrap agreement, they are nowhere present in the SPA, therefore, this allegation of understanding in regard to the scrap can't be said as part of the SPA, and, hence, it could not become a cause for termination of the SPA. As to payment of 37 crore, it is no where covenanted that R2 shall pay off the loan before first tranche of payment, no collateral asset security has been given by the petitioner to the loan pending, moreover some loan liability brought over along with the company remaining loan liability has been accrued upon the company in the tenure of the petitioner in the management from 19th January, 2012 - 25th May, 2015, thereafter the petitioner brother continued as nominee director until November 2015 - Since the respondents timely sent a letter for transfer of her first tranche of transfer of shares along with the photo copy of DD towards first payment of consideration, she on her own could not have terminated the agreement, therefore, termination of agreement by petitioner herself is not valid.
It is a fact that the company already laden with debt burden, therefore, to clear the same, the company transferred the property to the third party long before execution of share purchase agreement, therefore, the acts of the respondents could not be considered, which the petitioner painted as conduct oppressive to the interest of the petitioner. If at all such alienation is invalid for short of any compliance, this forum is not the place to decide the issue that is on face not indicative of any conduct falling within the ambit of section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 - If the petitioner has any grievance over proposal of transfer of shareholding basing on share purchase agreement, a remedy is carved out in the same agreement under arbitration clause, therefore, the petitioner has to go before arbitration but not come before this Bench by inventing pleadings and reliefs not supported by the facts existing in the case. Assuming the termination made by the petitioner is valid, then also she is bound by the arbitration clause because the proposition is well settled that arbitration clause will remain in force even if the agreement constituting arbitration is terminated for any reason. Therefore, the arbitration clause in such agreement is still binding upon the party.
This Bench is of the view that this dispute is covered by section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because the company, the petitioner and R2 being parties to the SPA, and the issues in it being decided not falling within the ambit of section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, it has to be construed that this dispute has to be referred to arbitration not to be decided before this Bench - Petition dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1840
Status of assessee - period of stay in India - Not Ordinarily Resident in India - adjustments u/s. 143(1) - error in Form-16 - perquisites taxable under the Income-tax Act - stock options income accrued and received outside India - assessee was employed in USA during the period August 2000 to October 2008 - exemption claimed by the assessee towards receipt said to be sale of stock options granted in the U.S.A while he was working in Google Inc. USA.- HELD THAT:- If any incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return, he should correct the same while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee claimed exemption of substantial amount which was in the form of sale of stock option in USA.
The Form No.16 annexed to the return of income issued by the present employee of the assessee shows that the stock option received by the assessee was liable for tax and it was subject to TDS by Google India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore and they have deducted the TDS on the same. This is being so, the AO while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act included the income from sale of stock option as income of the assessee. Now the assessee claimed that it could not have been done by the AO at the stage of prima facie adjustments u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In our opinion, when the information is available on record by way of Form No.16 annexed to the return of income the AO cannot keep quiet without making corrections while processing return u/s.143(1) of the Act. In our opinion, the AO is within his jurisdiction in considering the income from sale of stock options as income of assessee which is evident from the Form No.16 attached with the return of income. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authorities.
CIT(A) failed to adjudicate certain issue relating to the status of the assessee and also relating to the taxability of the stock option - These are debatable issue cannot be dealt u/s.143(1) of the Act and what cannot be done directly, the same thing cannot be done indirectly. Further, the reading of the whole order of the CIT(A) gives the impression that the CIT(A) has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the written submissions filed before him, though the assessee was non-cooperative. It is to be mentioned herein that the order of the lower authorities has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by CIT(A) or whether some incidental fact has not been noticed by the CIT(A) in his order. If the Tribunal on a fair reading of the Order of the CIT(A), finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing his conclusions, the decision of the CIT(A) is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions reached at by the CIT(A) are perverse. - Appeal of assessee dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1839
Disallowance u/s 43B - disallowance of interest claimed on OD/CC Account u/s 43B(d)/(e) r.w. Explanation 3D - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Tribunal repelled the said plea by interpreting Section 43B and held that overdraft/cash credit accounts are not similar to loan accounts. Tribunal further observed that the interest amount has been actually paid by the assessee through Overdraft/Cash Credit account and, therefore, set aside the disallowance made u/s 43B.
A bare reading of Explanations 3C and 3D to Section 43B provides an answer to the problem by making it clear that where interest amount has not been converted into loan or borrowing (or) loan or advance, as the case may be, there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction. In the case on hand, the interest amount has been actually paid by the assessee through Overdraft/Cash Credit account and the same has not been converted into loan or borrowing (or) loan or advance, as the case may be.
These appeals are dismissed by answering the question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
2016 (12) TMI 1838
Deduction u/s 80P in respect of interest received from the schedule bank - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case , [2016 (5) TMI 1545 - ITAT MUMBAI] as relying on QUEPEM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. [2015 (6) TMI 573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where assessee-cooperative society could not be regarded as “Cooperative Bank‟ on, mere fact that an insignificant proposition of revenue was coming from non-members, and thus, was entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1837
Deemed registration of an application u/s 12AA - High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision - appellants, has raised an apprehension that in the case of the respondent, since the date of application was of 24.02.2003, at the worst, the same would operate only after six months from the date of the application.
HELD THAT:- We see no basis for such an apprehension since that is the only logical sense in which the Judgment could be understood. Therefore, in order to disabuse any apprehension, we make it clear that the registration of the application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act in the case of the respondent shall take effect from 24.08.2003.
........
|
9911796707
