2013 (12) TMI 1368 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest free advances - Held that - CIT (A) has failed to pass a speaking order regarding whether the judgement in case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY is applicable or not - The assessee failed to demonstrate with evidences and details about the nexus between the interest free advances given and the interest free loans taken by the assessee - The issue was restored for adjudication. Profit on sale of shares - Held that - Profits cannot be taxed twice, one on account of assessee s own offer in the AY 2009-2010; and secondly on account of taxation by the Assessing Officer - CIT (A) needs to take a consistent stand in this regard and is required to pass a speaking order considering the fact that the same income should not be taxed twice - The issue was restored for adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of CIT (A)-19 and CIT (A)-6, Mumbai for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010, interconnected issues raised in all three appeals.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interest-free Advances and Loans
The core issue revolves around the applicability of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. The assessee argued that there is a nexus between interest-free advances given and interest-free loans taken, citing various sources of interest-free funds. However, the CIT (A) did not provide a specific adjudication on this crucial issue. The ITAT remanded the issue to the CIT (A) to pass a speaking order within 45 days, requiring the assessee to demonstrate the nexus with evidence and details, following principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Double Taxation on Share Transactions
The dispute concerns the addition of Rs.40 lakhs related to share transactions. The assessee acquired shares at Rs.45 per share, sold conditionally at Rs.65 per share, but the IPO did not materialize, leading to a refund and subsequent transfer at higher rates. The AO taxed the profits in the year under consideration despite the profits being offered in AY 2009-2010. The ITAT found it as a case of double taxation and remanded the matter to the CIT (A) to ensure consistent treatment, avoiding double taxation, and granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee for necessary calculations and evidences.

Issue 3: Application of Section 14A and Rule-8D
Ground no.1 not pressed due to Third Member decision of ITAT. Ground no.2 and no.3 are allowed for statistical purposes with identical directions as in the previous appeal. Ground no.4 related to interest u/s 234B and 234C was dismissed as consequential.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, remanding certain issues to the CIT (A) for further adjudication and ensuring consistent and fair treatment in tax assessments.