9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x and the loss of Rs.2,31,34,120/- (Rs.3,05,00,846 - Rs.73,66,726) on surrender of land is an allowable deduction? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that commission payment made to D.C. Johar and sons and M/s. Windco Sales Pvt. Ltd., of Rs.70,30,172/- was not genuine as held by the Assessing Officer since there was absolutely no proof for having incurred the same in the course of business? 3. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in allowing the expenses incurred in maintaining aircrafts and the depreciation over the same is allowable despite the assessee not establishing by maintaining any records that these aircrafts were used in the course of assessee's business? 4. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 220-00 as capital loss. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The first appellate authority was of the view that the two transactions referred to supra are independent of each other. Therefore the loss sustained in one transaction cannot be set off against the sale of going concern. Since these two are independent transactions with two independent parties, the loss or profit in each case has to be determined separately and unabsorbed capital gains as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore the appeal was allowed and the Assessing Authority was directed to treat the capital loss arising out of the surrender of the industrial land of Rs.2,31,34,120-00 to be carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record it is clear that the polymer unit which is at Vizag was acquired in the year 1978. The industrial land in Gujarat was acquired in the year 1997 to set up a polymer unit. Initially the assessee has spent some money towards salaries, wages, conveyance, telephone, interest, etc., in connection with the land at Gujarat. That by itself would not make the said land the property of the polymer unit. In fact, these properties are separate and distinct. Admittedly, no industrial activity was carried on in the land at Gujarat. It was surrendered when it was of no use for the assessee. Both the transactions are with two distinct persons. Under these circumstances, the first appellant authority as well as the Tribunal was justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
