There is no cogency in the ground raised by the Revenue that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has not duly afforded adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions and evidences filed before him at the appellate stage. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has duly sent the documents furnished by the assessee at the appellate stage to the Assessing Officer for a remand report.
In the present case, the revenue authorities, sought to apply the statutory presumptions, as contemplated under section 132(4A) to the facts of the present case, without establishing the factum that the assessee was found in possession or control of any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing etc. In this specific context, it is inconceivable and incomprehensible, as to how the provisions of section 132(4A) are applicable to the facts of the case, without showing satisfaction of the statutory conditions precedent contained therein.
Assessee admittedly was having only one homogenous business activity that was construction and selling of flats. No doubt, it was having five projects, but the question is whether each of the projects were forming part and parcel of one unit or part of one industrial undertaking.
Now coming to the other aspect on the basis of which the AO disallowed the claim as to whether or not expenditure incurred as a result of compounding of violation of municipal laws & Environmental laws falls within the ambit of aforesaid explanation to sec. 37(1) of the Act, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 held that compounding of the offence cannot take away the rigors of the Explanation to S.37(1) in view of the expression ‘shall not be deemed to have been incurred’ used in that Explanation.
Even though the assessment order mentions date of receipt of profit on sale of shares as 4.2.2004 and the amount is claimed to have been received from the company M/s DN Kansal & Securities (P) Ltd., the AO or the ld. CIT(A) did not analyse the nature of transaction as to how it is loan or advance nor ascertained accumulated profits of the said company until the date of transaction.
When the bona fideof the transaction and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been suspected, then for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the full value of consideration can not be substituted by market price or value of the capital asset as on the date of transfer.
The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act.
Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that insofar as the second reason is concerned, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings with a view to ‘examine’ whether the assessee had accumulated reserve. Obviously, the scope of section 147 cannot encompass such an action under which certain examination is to be conducted for forming a reason to believe as to the escapement of income.
The present society is doing its business and charging huge fees from the public which was in addition to the prescribed fee of the Punjab Government. Even otherwise, the fees charged by the present society is in addition to the burden forced upon the common-man. Because of this service has to be rendered by the Punjab Government free of cost to the public against the fee prescribed in the chart as reproduced in the foregoing paragraphs.
It was held that :- (a) Companies with extra-ordinary circumstances, like those which suffered events like merger/de-merger, impacting the financial results, could not be treated as comparables. (b) Companies having supernormal profit cannot be considered as comparable; (c) Companies which are functionally dissimilar cannot be taken as comparables. (d) Companies acting merely as intermediary having outsourced its activity cannot be considered as comparable.
