9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his issue being taken as additional ground. In the interest of justice, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with direction to allow the same as per fact and law. Allowability of deduction u/s.24(b) of the Act on account of interest paid on housing loan - Held that:- This issue has been raised by way of addition ground before us. As stated above, this issue was taken before Assessing Officer who escaped the above deduction while computing the total income of assessee and even not given any comment for the same on merit. Being legal issue, it can be raised before us. It is maintainable, so, same is entertained at this stage. Since on facts there is no finding of lower authorities, so, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with direction to decide the same as per fact and law after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. Nature of loss - business v/s capital loss - Held that:- The Explanation to section 37 of the Act has really nothing to do with the instant case as it was not a case of business expenditure, but of business loss. Business losses were allowable on ordinary commercial principles in computing profits. Once it was found that heroin seized formed par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the law of taxation. Hence, requested that disallowance made by Assessing Officer be deleted. According to the contention of assessee, when expenses were not claimed at all, then same could not be disallowed. Agreeing to the contentions of assessee we do not find that addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. Treating the dividend income as taxable income - Held that:- In present case, Assessing Officer has not disputed that the income was dividend. He just wants the details which were already in his possession. According to Revenue authorities, one thing is clear that assessee had invested in shares and securities which were not in dispute and all the shares were listed shares of company. Hence, it cannot be imagined that dividend received from Indian company was taxable. Therefore, it was requested to allow the exemption u/s.10(33) of the Act and treated the dividend income as exempt.In this background, we are of the view that this issue needs to be analysed in the facts of the case as prayed by assessee - ITA. Nos. 5029 to 5036/Mum/2014, ITA. No. 5037/Mum/2014, & ITA. Nos. 5019 & 5020/Mum/2014, ITA. Nos. 5021 to 5028/Mum/2014, ITA. Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of books of account u/s.145. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction of expenses on ad-hoc basis instead of actual basis claimed by the appellant. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction of rebate u/s 88 claimed by the appellant in return of income. 3. Assessment in this case was originally completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2005 determining total income at ₹ 2,05,080/- as against the returned income of ₹ 1,93,070/-. Subsequently, it was revealed during survey action u/s.133A of the Act conducted at assessee's premises on 13/14.02.2009 that assessee had earned on business of issuing hawala bills for sales on commission basis. Hence, the case of assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 18.03.2009 and other statutory notices u/s.142(1) from time to time, which were duly served on the assessee. During reassessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee had not carried out any trading b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale parties after deducting assessee's commission. The deduction of commission is over and above shown in the books as G.P. This was never disclosed in the books. (v) Assessee has floated number of concerns, for preparing purchase bills, operated several bank accounts and amount paid to these accounts in the guise of purchase consideration. From these account cash is withdrawn and paid to the so called customers and retained commission there also. (vi) Assessee has also categorically stated in his statement recorded u/s. 131 on 23.2.2009 that he has not paid any brokerage or commission as all purchase bills are made by him. (vii) From the statement/documents found during the course of survey action and impounded, that commission earned varies from 2 to 4% and assessee has accounted only 1.15% in the form of G.P. in the accounts furnished with the return. However, the commission earned in cash while handing over the money to customers; commission charged on back dated bills and in fictitious supplier's account discussed above were never accounted, (viii) Assessee has not furnished any details and documentary evidence during the course of present reassessment pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which has been reaffirmed in the statement u/s.131 dt. 23.2.2009. (xvi) It is seen from the impounded documents/bills that sales bills issued are to the extent of ₹ 5,70,47,800/- as show caused in the notice/letter dt.12.6.2009. (xvii) In view of the facts unearthed during the course of Survey and confirmed on 23.3.2009, mere filing of copies of old confirmation of 2002 furnished at the time of original assessment cannot be treated as proving of purchases and sales shown in the accounts submitted and as compliance to various notices u/s. 142(1) and letters to the assessee. (xviii)When the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s. 142(1), asked assessee to prove his claims, if any, with verifiable details and supporting documents for each debit and credit, mere denial of facts found during the Survey by an Affidavit and filing some ledger- account computer sheets of some parties (most of them are unsigned) through an Affidavit cannot be treated as a compliance to the notice u/s.142(1). (xix) The validity and correctness of old confirmation is 'Zero' on account of facts noticed and admitted during the course of Survey and the question of verification arises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,70,47,800/- was worked out to ₹ 34,22,868/- Out of said estimated income, expenses was allowed @ 5% of estimated commission income i.e. at ₹ 1,71,143/- Accordingly, commission income was estimated at ₹ 34,22,868 - 1,71,143 = ₹ 32,51,725/-. 4.3 During previous appellate proceedings, assessee had questioned the estimates of Assessing Officer on two counts, (i) Estimation of turnover at ₹ 5,70,47,800/- by Assessing Officer based on sale bills found during survey, as against turnover of ₹ 5,52,51,947/- declared by the assessee; (ii) Rate of estimation of gross commission @7% by taking 4% on giving sales bills and 3% on purchase bills, though Assessing Officer had finally assessed such gross commission @ 6% as against 7% proposed in show cause notice. The Assessing Officer, however, clarified his basis of rate of estimation by way of a remand report. Assessing Officer stated that it was on the basis of market information, the statement on oath of assessee and his preliminary verbal confessions combined with other factors and information which was in possession of then Assessing Officer, that a fair rate of commission @7% was decided to be adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is invited to page 3 para 3 of the said ITAT order which states as under: 3.. We have carefully perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the copies of the letter filed by the assessee bearing stamp of the Ld. CIT (A). We find that the assessee did request the Ld. CIT(A) to post the case for hearing after 14th November, 2011. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that the case was fixed on 16th November, 2011. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT (A) proceeded to decide the appeal exparte relying upon the own order in the case of assessee 's husband. The learned counsel of the assessee 's prayed before us that if given an opportunity, the assessee will represent its case before the Ld. CIT (A) without seeking any further adjournment. In our humble opinion, the issues deserves to be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT (A) on 4th July, 2013. The Ld. CIT (A) is expected to give fair hearing to the assessee to present its case. 4.5 In this 'set aside' proceeding, it was submitted on behalf of assessee as under: ―2.1 At the outset, it is submitted that I do not wish to press point no 1 regarding reo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business in textiles. (ii) 27 (ii) For record purpose, assessee himself prepared purchase bills by using the bill book got printed and kept with him from year to year or get generated from the computer. [Page 14 of order of CIT (Appeal) order] (iii) Question No 10-What is the percentage of commission received by you and from whom: Ans- I am receiving 1% commission on the gross amount of Sales bill from the sales parties. (Page 25 - bottom para of the AO's Order) (Page 36. of the paper book) (iv) 4. That means you and your family concern did not have any 'trading' activities from the year 2000 onwards...... [page 2 of point no 4 of the statement recorded on 23-2-2009] (page 94. of the paper book) (v) 7. How do you generate income from these accommodation bills. Ans: I receive 1% commission on the gross amount of sales bills from the parties, which I am offering for taxation every year after deducting nominal expenses. page 2 of point no 4 of the statement recorded on 23-2-2009] (page 94. of the paper book) (vi) 44 ......However, on physical verification the total cash in all the above concerns founds at the 702, Akhil Towers, Dahisar east amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed above is applied, my business income would be computed under: 1% of accommodation bills of ₹ 5,52,51947 = ₹ 5,52,619/- Less : Bank interest (indisputably for above activities) (Rs. 1,54,655/-) Less : 5% of total commission allowed by A0 (Rs. 27,626/-) Business income ₹ 3,70,3381- 5. It is therefore, requested to kindly consider the above facts in totality and additional facts that the cash found in my all premises combined was only ₹ 2,39,000/- (of all family members) and assess the amount which is realistic and justifiable as stated/computed above. 6. One more issue I wish to urge before your honour is about not allowing rebate u/s 88 by AO of LIC premium and PPF amounting to ₹ 47,7681-. The rebate @ 20% comes to ₹ 9,5541- which was claimed in the return of income. It appears that the A0 has forgotten to grant such rebate while making the tax working. I am making the necessary application before the A.O. Your honour's direction in this regard will help me getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife of the assessee and Prop. Ms. Shree Ram Sales Synthetics on 33-2009 wherein also they have confirmed and stood by the statements recorded by Shri Rakeshkurnar Gupta confirming that the assessee and his family members have indulged exclusively in the activity of issuing accommodation bills only to various parties for the past 9 years and earning commission on the same. Further, in the course of survey, it was also noticed from the documents that the assessee had charged commission from 1 to 40% on the sales bills issued. It was also affirmed by the assessee that there are no expenses including commission expenses. Even though the assessee has admitted that he receives 1% commission, the survey team had found that the assessee is in the habit of issuing back dated bills for which the percentage of commission is very high. It was also found that many accommodation bills were issued to different parties having the same bill number. The assessee had also given the names of the fictitious firms on which he prepares the purchase bills. The assessee has never been able to substantiate his purchases of cloth with evidences like delivery challans, lorry receipts, payment details, etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. The assessee was given ample opportunity to submit all the details for completing assessment proceedings, but he has not availed the opportunities. Further, the assessee has made substantial investment in immovable properties and by claiming that his commission is only 1%, such huge investments cannot be made which fact also goes to show that assessee 's commission is much more than the so called 1% which he claims to have received. Therefore, the A.O. has rightly and correctly estimated the income at 7% of the turnover (Sales purchases) carried out by the assessee which is much less than the percentage charged by havala operators which normally ranges from 10 to 12% for providing accommodation entries. In view of these facts, the A.0. has correctly and rightly estimated the income at 7% based on materials found in the course of survey proceedings at the assessee's premises. It is pertinent to mention here that in the course of re-opened assessment proceedings for the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2006-07 and A.Y. 2008-09 before the undersigned, the assessee totally failed to appear except for entering into correspondences which has been the constant practice of the assessee as no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discussed in the assessment orders from A.Y. 2002-03 to 2008-09. 4.7 In reply to the remand report, assessee filed rejoinder dated 26-05-2014, which is reproduced as under: This rejoinder is being made pursuant to the remand report in response to our written submission before your honour received from the A.O. At the outset, the major dispute raised in the written submission was in respect of the determination/estimation of the income by: i) estimating the higher turnover (based on bills found at the time of survey,) rather than on the basis of books. ii) estimating the income 4%, 6% and 7% of the sales bills. iii) estimating income @ 3% on the purchases turnover routed through the accounts operated by family concerns by treating the same as sales by such accounts/fictitious concerns. iv) not considering the loss on shares business in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 v) Not allowing administrative expenses and interest to banks. vi) not allowing the interest on housing loans. vii) not allowing the deductions under chapter VIA/VIIIA. viii) not allowing the dividend income as exempt income. ix) treating the amount of blanks cheques of ₹ 1.40 crores as income u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. A.O. mentioned that that it was found from records that commission ranging from 4% to 7% have been earned, but no documentary evidence was provided in respect of said alleged records, whereas, in the contrary the appellant in his statement u/s 133A and 131 and during the course of assessment proceeding has catagorily admitted that he has earned only 1% of the sales as commission. Reliance is placed on recent judgment of Mumbai ITAT 'E' Bench delivered on 4-4-2014 in the matter of Saroj Anil Steel Pvt Ltd. v/s ITO having similar facts wherein in second appeal before the ITAT, the hawala income was considered @1% as against the 0.409% considered by the First appellate authority and also directed to allow certain administrative expenses. However, the matter again reached before the Tribunal on the grounds of reducing the turnover made among the sister concern but the appeal dismissed since the ground was raised first time before the ITAT. It is submitted that the rate of commission always higher in steel products where the taxes like sales tax are involved and there always be compliance cost. In our case the appellant was dealing in textiles fabrics which do not have an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us banks and also having the office /administrative set up to run the show. The appellant was forced to obtain the credit facilities from banks in view of withholding the amount of cheques given for, discounting of 1.40 crores by Mr. Madanlal Bagecha. Therefore, the amount obtained from banks/institution was used in business to run the show. The respective records were seized by the department at the time of survey and in the custody of the department. Therefore the interest on unsecured loans from banks and other certain administrative expenses should be allowed to assess the fair income. vi) not allowing the interest on housing loans. It is undisputed that the appellant had availed the housing loans and paid the interest. However, the Ld. A. 0. disallowed the same merely on the basis of the not submitting the certificate of interest. It is submitted that since all the records were seized by the department, appellant was not in position to submit the same before A. 0. However, appellant shall be n position to submit the same once the seized records are returned to appellant. We have already enclosed the evidence of housing loans obtained with the written submission. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and beyond the stretch of imagination The statement showing the properties and loans are enclosed as statement 'B . Finally, we hereby request your honour to allow the appeal taking the Judicial and realistic approach. 4.8 After considering the same, CIT(A) held as under: ―4.6. I have perused facts and circumstances of the case and the written submission, remand report and rejoinder very carefully. I find that the appellant has agreed of having issued the hawala bills for commission and submitted that finally the dispute between the AO and the appellant is broadly on two points i.e. (i) Estimating the Turnover at ₹ 5,70,47,800/- on the basis of sale bills found during survey as against audited turnover of ₹ 5,5 1,51,947/- and (ii) estimating the Gross profit rate on issuing Hawala Bills @ 6% as against 1% claimed as earned by the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant has submitted revised computation of his income at ₹ 3,70,338/-. Here it is pertinent to note that earlier the appellant had retracted his own statements u/s 133A 131, whereby he claimed that he had earned a profit of 3% to 4% in trading activities with few parties and 1% in hawala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, some guess work is necessary and inevitable and which cannot be substituted by any other authority, if the estimation is based on some rational facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in said case that The assessee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own illegal acts. It was his duty to place all facts truthfully before the assessing authority. If he fails to do his duty, he cannot be allowed to call upon the assessing authority to prove conclusively what turnover he had suppressed. That fact must be within his personal knowledge. Hence, the burden of proving that fact is on him . I find that the appellant has grossly failed in the burden cast on him to prove that he had not earned more than what is claimed to have earned by him; rather the conflicting statements of appellant at various times have proved that the appellant's claim do not have any sanctity. In these circumstances, the best judgment assessment made by the AO cannot be questioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in aforesaid case that If the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact that there is no good p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, it was submitted that CIT(A) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of Assessing Officer of calculating the commission @ 6% as against 1% admitted during course of survey proceedings, merely based on surmises and conjectures and without brining on record any material to show that assessee had in fact earned such a commission at alleged higher rate of 6%. Further, CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer assuming the base of billing at ₹ 5,70,47,800/- against billing of ₹ 5,52,51,947/- recorded in the books of accounts and not making any reference to bank book and statements impounded during course of survey. 5.1 Regarding turnover, stand of assessee has been that in accommodation business turnover to be computed on receipts basis and not on assumption basis. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that Assessing Officer while taking turnover of ₹ 5,70,47,800/- instead of ₹ 5,52,51,947/- in show cause notice stated that assessee had issued the bills of ₹ 5,70,47,800/- therefore the bills issued amount will be turnover of assessee. But, Assessing Officer failed to consider that in accommodation bill business, turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is prevailing in this line. In this regard, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that this issue of determination of rate of commission in case of accommodation transaction arose before the ITAT in case of Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 294 (Delhi) wherein Tribunal held as under:- 49. The next issue arises for estimation of commission income. In the statement the assessee at the time of survey under section 133A had stated that he charged 25p as commission for providing accommodation entries and out of that 25p he paid lop to others in whose name bank accounts were maintained and 5p was spent on expenses incurred in relation such business and hence, net commission earned was l0p i.e., 0.10 per cent. The ld. CIT (A) had taken the commission at 1 per cent as against 1.75 per cent applied by the Assessing Officer for which no evidence during the course of survey was found. The ld. CIT(A) has also noted that there was no clear standard rate of commission for accommodation activities. According to him the people who are engaged in this type of business would not charge less than 1 per cent on the bill amount as done in the case of brokerage on real estate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... names dummy concerns were floated. However, in the business of entry provider certain expenditure has to be incurred which has been stated to be 5p during the course of survey. Therefore, credit of 5p out of 25p received as commission has to be allowed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to estimate commission income by applying 0.2 per cent net commission on turnover determined by the Ld. CIT (A) for both the assessment years as against 1 per cent taken by him. 6.1 We find that Tribunal in case of Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT (supra) held that rate of commission cannot be more than 1%, but in present case, assessee had already offered the same for taxation purpose but with rider of allowability of certain expense against same. Hence, the rate of 6% adopted by Assessing Officer was highly one. Hence, the commission income was to be taken @ 0.6% of sales turnover. Similar view has also been taken by the jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in case of Gold Star Finvest (P.) Ltd Vs. ITO [2013] 33 taxmann.com 129 (Mumbai - Trib.), wherein Tribunal held as under: 12. Having carefully examined the various Orders in the case of different assessees' it has become amply clear t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible for claiming the deduction @ 20% of contribution made in PPF LIC premium and other. Assessing Officer while computing total income escaped the said rebate without any comment. Hence, requested that the rebate claimed by assessee required to be allowed as per law. Lower authorities had no occasion to adjudicate this issue being taken as additional ground. In the interest of justice, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with direction to allow the same as per fact and law. 8. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 9. In ITA No.5030/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2003-04 in case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta, all grounds are similar to that of A.Y.2002-03. It is only stated that only difference instead of commission of 6% on sale, Assessing Officer computed the commission income @4% on sale and 3% on purchase. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that following the submission in A.Y. 2002-03 issue should be decided. We have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided on same line i.e. 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 9.1 Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee obtained home loan from Standard Chartered Bank and GE Money Housing Finance and paid interest of ₹ 1,47,679/- thereon claimed the deduction of same on account of interest on housing loan u/s.24(b) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer escaped the above deduction while computing the total income of assessee and even not given any comment for disallowing the same. Assessee had obtained the flat from loan and paid interest thereon which is not in dispute. Hence, interest paid of housing loan was requested to be allowed to assessee u/s.24(b) of the Act. This issue has been raised by way of addition ground before us. As stated above, this issue was taken before Assessing Officer who escaped the above deduction while computing the total income of assessee and even not given any comment for the same on merit. Being legal issue, it can be raised before us. It is maintainable, so, same is entertained at this stage. Since on facts there is no finding of lower authorities, so, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with direction to decide the same as per fact and law after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. 17. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o assessee purchase parties at Bhiwandi for getting goods purchases. Mr. Madanalal Bagrecha had intentionally withhold this amount for which assessee had lodged an official complain with concern Police department and financial crime department. (Refer Page No.88 to 91 of paper book). Thus, it was a business loss of assessee which required to be allowed to assessee. Assessing Officer and CIT(A) observed that assessee had given cash loan of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- to Shri Madanlal Bagrecha and source of same was unexplained. Hence, they made addition of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. The stand of assessee has been that it is a business loss and required to be allowed and same should not be added because assessee had given advances in normal business practice which was lost. Hence, it was submitted to the case where assessee suffered from loss. Hence, it was a business loss and required to be allowed instead of making addition of the same. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the decision of Vijayashanthi Builders Ltd. vs. JCIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 31 (Chennai - Trib.), wherein assessee-builder paid advance money to buy a land for construction of residential flats the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is partly allowed. 22. In 5034/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2007-08 in case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 22.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 23. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of interest of housing loans of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06, which has been discussed and restored to Assessing Officer by us vide para 16 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue restored to Assessing Officer with similar direction. 23. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of long term capital gain. Revenue authorities held that assessee failed to file the details. Hence, Assessing Officer treated gain as trading business income. In this regard, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 29. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of interest of housing loans of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06, which has been restored to Assessing Officer by us vide para 16 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, these issues are restored to Assessing Officer with similar direction. 30. Next issue in this year is with regard to treating the speculative income as normal income and accordingly not giving the set off of carry forward speculation loss. Assessing Officer did not allow this loss. We have decided similar issue against assessee in A.Y. 2007-08 vide para 25 of this order. Facts being similar so following same reasoning this issue is decided against assessee. 31. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of short term capital loss of ₹ 1,24,58,478. Similar issue arose in A.Y.2007-08, which has been restored to Assessing Officer by us vide para 26 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, these issues are restored to Assessing Officer with similar direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails which were already in his possession. According to Revenue authorities, one thing is clear that assessee had invested in shares and securities which were not in dispute and all the shares were listed shares of company. Hence, it cannot be imagined that dividend received from Indian company was taxable. Therefore, it was requested to allow the exemption u/s.10(33) of the Act and treated the dividend income as exempt. 33.1 In this background, we are of the view that this issue needs to be analysed in the facts of the case as prayed by assessee. So, the matter is restored to Assessing Officer with direction to decide the same as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to assessee. 34. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 35. In ITA No.5036/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 in case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 35.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 42.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 43. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 44. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 45. In ITA No.5020/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2009-10 in case of Nilesh Rakeshkumar, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 53. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 54. In ITA No.5023/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2004-05 in case of Mohit Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 54.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 55. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.88 of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 56. As a res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 64.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 65. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of interest of housing loans of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06, which has been discussed and restored to Assessing Officer by us vide para 16 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue restored to Assessing Officer with similar direction. 66. Next ground is with regard to treating the dividend income of ₹ 26,391/- as taxable income. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 08-09 vide para no.30.1. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning we are of the view that this issue needs to be analysed in the facts of the case as prayed by assessee. So, the matter is rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 74.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 75. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.80C of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 76. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 77. In ITA No.5011/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2002-03 in case of Hema Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 77.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer with similar directions. 85. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 86. In ITA No.5014/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2005-06 in case of Hema Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 86.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 87. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.88 88C of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 88. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 89. In ITA No.5015/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2006-07 in case of Hema Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 96. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.80C 80D of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 97. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 98. In ITA No.5018/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2009-10 in case of Hema Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 98.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 98.2 As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 99. In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are partly allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
