9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reliance placed by AO on certain case laws was misplaced as they do not apply to the facts of assessee’s case. On the other hand, he followed Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in assessee’s sister concern, namely Apollo Industrial Products P. Ltd for assessment year 1989-90 in which identical issue was decided in favour of assessee and against the revenue. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has, after analyzing the material on record, found as a matter of fact that the assessee had sufficient surplus funds at its disposal for making any investment in share and for business purpose and therefore, there was no nexus that could be established with the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of loss on sale of shares - Held that:- It is true that the impugned shares were of unlisted companies; therefore, there is no data available for the prevailing market rate on the date of sale from the stock exchanges. All that has to be seen is whether the valuation of the shares is scientific and based upon facts and figures. We find that the valuation of shares is back by the certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the ld. CIT(A) and explained that there was no issue of bonus share during the year under consideration, the A.O. has disallowed the expenditure totally on the wrong facts. 6. After considering the facts and the submissions, the First Appellate Authority observed that there is no mention of ₹ 2,10,168/- under head "Legal, duties, professional and legal charges". The First Appellate Authority found that the impugned expense was a routine yearly payment to National Depository Services Ltd., Central Depository Services Ltd., Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. and National Stock Exchange Ltd. for the continuance of the listing of the shares. The ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that such expenditure is of revenue in nature and deleted the same. Before us. The ld. D.R. could not point out any factual error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 7. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the facts in issue, we find force in the factual findings of the First Appellate Authority. The entire expenditure has been incurred for the continuance of the listing of the shares with the various authorities as mentioned hereinabove. We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and conditions of various contracts in relation to the retention money and without recording his specific finding as to the method of accounting regularly followed by assessee upheld the order of the AO making the addition of ₹ 40,32,955/-. Hon'ble ITAT therefore restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with specific direction to decide the issue after analyzing the relevant terms and conditions of the contracts in relation to the retention money as to whether or not any amount retained by the respective customers actually accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration and whether this action of the assessee is in conformity with the method of accounting regularly followed by him. In compliance of this, Ld. CIT(A) after analyzing the terms of payments of purchase orders in respect of various parties has given a categorical finding that the retention of 10% money of total sales was due to specific terms and conditions for final payment mentioned in the customer purchase order. It was further held by Ld. CIT(A) that assessee-company has been following this system of accounting for the last several years and was accepted by the department. Not only this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er retention money had not been shown in that year and realized in the subsequent year had been shown as sale proceeds in that year and offered for tax. It is in these circumstances that the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that there was no need to disturb the method of accounting followed by the assessee - company and also found no discrepancy in terms and conditions of purchase orders. The Tribunal has concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is amply clear that the controversy involved in this case stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the above decision of this court. Under the circumstances, no question of law can be stated to arise as/proposed. This ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 16. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble High Court (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 2 is accordingly dismissed. 17. Ground no. 3 relates to the deletion of the addition of ₹ 21,82,933/- out of disallowance of ₹ 33,39,824/- u/s. 14A of the Act r.w. Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 1735.34 (350 capital) 4544.13 475.28 101 10% 1306.0 - 456.85 1050 2 1999-2000 194 1.28 (350 capital) 6440.55 512.68 200 42% 1321.49 15.4 1217.8 1121 3 2000-2001 2166.81 (350 capital) 6822.2 482.96 161 7% 1636.21 285 1216.3 1279 4 2001-2002 2270.2 (350 capital) 6403.34 512.35 178 -7% 2378.11 742 1251 1595 5 2002-2003 2744.54 (350 capital) 9858.7 932.62 340 52% 2584.4 206 705.1 1583 6 2003-2004 33 18.83 (350 capital) 9336 1157 390 -5% 3358 772 683 1688 7 2004-2005 3541 (350 capital) 6952.73 753 260 -25% 2968.07 -390 1819 1764 8 2005-2006 4428.94 (700 capital) 11354.51 1606.91 560 60% 3216.58 248 1819 2008 9 2006-2007 5994.69 (1050 capital) 15634.34 2769.52 931 35% 3122.56 -94 1661.6 2227 10 2007-2008 9461. 86 (1050 capital) 18638.41 5629.94 1532.5 20% 3051.16 -71 2965.96 3505 11 2008-2009 1 1255.48 (1575 capital 18124.24 3236.13 1074 -3% 1946.34 52°/ 1466 4612 12 2009-2010 14355. 1(1575 capital) 21416.33 4142.87 1449 20% 3793.91 90% 1540 7074 * ₹ 1 5 crore was deposited on 3 1 -03-2008 which was received on sale of investment 22. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that could be established with the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciating the evidence on record. On behalf of the appellant, nothing contrary has been pointed out so as to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, nor is it the case of the assessee that the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has been ignored. In the absence of any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference. 24. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, we decline to interfere. 25. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 241/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 Assessee's appeal 26. The first grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of the addition to the extent of ₹ 7,82,500/- out of the total disallowance of ₹ 33,39,824/- made u/s. 14A of the Act. 27. We find that from our record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of the revenue authorities. 33. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the impugned shares were of unlisted companies; therefore, there is no data available for the prevailing market rate on the date of sale from the stock exchanges. All that has to be seen is whether the valuation of the shares is scientific and based upon facts and figures. We find that the valuation of shares is back by the certificate of Chartered Accountant which is exhibited from pages 119 to 123 of the paper book. A perusal of the same show that the C.A. has done a scientific valuation as per the prescribed norms. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we do not find any error in the valuation so made. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ashok Soni in ITA No. 4574/Del/2002 had the occasion to consider a similar issue. The relevant head note reads as under:- Capital gains-Computation-Actual sale consideration vis-a-vis fair market value-No material was available with the AO to show that the assessee has received more amount than the consideration shown in the registered document-After deletion of s. 52 it is not possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
