9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses of office overheads, salaries, rent etc - The Assessing Officer has implicitly accepted that the expenditure is duly incurred for such business - The appellant also derives income from business of speculation, dealing, in shares, investments, loan finance and related activities in the name of M/s Ashok Mittal & Co. - The Assessing Officer has not been able to prove that the appellant did not carry out the stated activity of investment management - Decided against Revenue. - ITA NO. 27/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2013 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Balbir Singh, Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Damini Chawla, Ms. Radhika Arora and Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manufacturing of Marble items 6 M/s Ashok Exports Exports of Marble 3. The first/original assessment order records that the concerns mentioned from serial number 2 to 6 during the assessment year in question had virtually carried out no business activity. The entire business activity was carried out by M/s Ashok Mittal Co. The assessment order records that all the six concerns were situated at one premises and M/s Carrara Marble Granite Industries had a factory at Daman. The assessee has stated that they had maintained a common centralised expenditure account for the six sole proprietorship concerns. The expenditure relating to each concern was apportioned. The stand of the respondent-assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A comparative chart regarding miscellaneous income received by the assessee for A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2001-02 is enclosed. The receipt on account of establishment charges has been assessee in earlier assessment years as Business Receipts and following the principle of consistency, the same may be treated as Business Receipts x x x x x x x x x x 5. Thereafter, Assessing Officer has made reference to other issues under the same heading but the same are not relevant. The only finding recorded by the Assessing Officer is as under:- During the year, the assessee has claimed the receipt of Rs.31,50,000/- from M/s Fareast Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s European Investment Ltd. The assessee has filed the copy of the agreement enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute genuineness of the receipt. He has accepted that income was received pursuant to the agreements between the assessee and M/s Fareast Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and M/s European Investment Ltd. As noticed above, the assessee also dealt with share investment, loan finance and related activities. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the first appellate order deleted the said addition and has held that the receipt of Rs.31.5 lacs was taxable under the head business income and not as income from other sources . He observed that the Assessing Officer had not discussed the basis and had assumed that no expenses were incurred for earning of income from management and advisory services and in case the Assessing Officer was not satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the copies of the agreements entered into by the appellant with Far East Investment Corporation Ltd. and European Investment Ltd. were filed before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 27.08.2010 which show that the appellant s proprietorship concern M/s Litolier was appointed as Investment Manager to invest and manage the funds and assets entrusted to him by these Mauritius based companies. The appellant has contended that the management fees were accounted for. In the case of M/s. Litolier because as per its consistently followed modus operandi, administrative expenses are incurred centrally through M/s Litolier and apportioned in the different proprietorship business concerns in proportion to the turnover. The appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the income was not derived from the business activity of Investment Manager . (4.2) The appellant s contention that on the principle of consistency, the income from investment management and advisory fees should have been assessed as business income is also with merit. There is no fundamental difference in the nature of business activity between the present income. In the Assessment Year 1998-99, the miscellaneous income was disclosed and assessed as business income in the order under section 143(3) dated 29.03.2001. This was the first year of the agreement signed with Far East Investment Corporation Ltd. and Eurpopean Investment Ltd. As there is no change in the terms of the agreement or in the nature of services rendered, even on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
