ACIT Vs. H.K. Imp ex Pvt. Ltd.(ITAT Mumbai)- The dispute is regarding addition of Rs. 4.85 crores being the share application money invested by the two directors who were holding 50% share in the company. We find from the records that the assessee vide letter dated 17.9.09 addressed to AO had given full details such as name, address, PAN of the two directors. The source of the money had been explained as the money withdrawn from the capital account in the firm M/s. S.G. Enterprises.
GNG Stock Holdings (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- When a business is established and is ready to commence business, then it can be said of that business that it is set up. But before it is ready to commence business, it is not set up. In other words, a business cannot be said to be set up before it is ready to commence. The actual commencement of the business may have some interval from the date when the business was set up, but in order to hold that the business is set up, it is to be seen as to whether it was ready to commence though actual commencement might not have been taken place.
Whether Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt the value of the property sold as per DVO report for the purpose of computing capital gains in place of value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority and considered by AO as per provisions of Section 50C(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Held, Yes If the fair market value as assessed by the DVO is lower than the value adopted by Stamp Duty Authorities for collecting stamp duty. Then value so adopted by DVO has to be adopted by the AO for the purpose of computation of LTCG.
These two appeals are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) directed against the order dated 31st March, 2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Echjay Forgings P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- As observed by Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Chainrup Sampatram vs CIT, 24 ITR 481, “while anticipated loss is thus taken into account, anticipated profits…is not brought into account, as no prudent trader would care to show increased profit before it’s actual realization”. The underlying principle is the theory of conservation in accounting which has the sanction of Honourable Courts above. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned dis-allowance of t. 1,07,83,402 The assessee gets relief accordingly.
Duncans Industries Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Under S. 80-HHC (1) the deduction is to be given in computing the total income of the assessee. In computing the total income of the assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Section 80-AB is relevant.
ITO Vs M/s Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Sec (I) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee has incurred an expenditure towards the service charges of the shared premises to its group concern which has taken the same on leave and license. As per leave and license agreement, the sharing of the premises with group concern is allowed as contemplated in clause 11 of the agreement.
Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the assessee is entitled to claim expenses for obsolete stores/ spares on provisional basis or it will be allowed in the year in which it is sold
Cherokee India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Though, the assessee claimed that it has applied a mark-up of 6% on the costs, as per TNMM and should not have been doubted merely because the net result was a loss in the year under consideration. Whether such mark-up can be based on an estimated cost is required to be proved by referring to the agreement whereas the assessee could not furnish the agreement and did not place sufficient proof to support his logic of arriving at “standard cost” and in the absence of proving the same by producing any document/agreement with its principal highlighting the contractual terms of sharing cost, the learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that the special provisions of the Act have to be construed strictly and the method adopted by the tax authorities for making transfer pricing adjustments is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
ITO Vs Basic Chemicals & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- There is a wide variation between value of TDR and value of fully constructed industrial building and the two values are not comparable. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), the AO’s letter dt. 18.12.2008 shows that while examining the AIR transaction of . two crores, the AO has mixed up the AIR transaction of two crores with purchase of TDR of Rs. 1,43,04,413/- and consequently made erroneous conclusion that there is undisclosed investment within the meaning of Sec. 69B.
