AO had made disallowance of labour payments on the basis of estimation to the extent of 20% of the expenditure. The AO has not given any basis on which he has based his finding to disallow at 20% of the expenditure on estimate basis.
In the case of Asst Shri Ashokkumar Bhailal v Income Tax Officer, ITAT Ahmedabad has held that addition made on basis of witness statements, without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the witness and without collaborating other independent evidence is not sustainable in law.
The Assessee sold immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.13,70,000/-. The stamp duty valuation price was Rs.17,90,085/-. Accordingly AO invoking the provision of section 50C made addition on account of short-term capital gain.
In the balance sheet of the assessee, A.O. noted that there was a term loan of Rs.7,58,09,730/- from Axis Bank. Further the assessee has invested in fully paid equity shares of Pollen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.6 crores.
The AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the penalty in respect of addition made due to provision for sundry debtors and provision for suspense.
The present appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made u/s 35D in respect of expenditure incurred related to issue of shares and computation of book profit u/s 115JB.
In the instant case, the assessee has sold 71233 shares for Rs.3.33 crore under the buy-back scheme. This sale consideration comprises Rs.1.06 crore as interest. The assessee calculated the capital gain considering the total receipt of Rs.3.33 crore as value of sale consideration while the A.O. taxed Rs.1.06 crore as income from other sources which was confirmed by the Tribunal.
The ITAT bench of Panaji in the case of Sesa Resources Limited held that the disallowance under Sec 14A read with rule 8D can be made only in respect of investments which are earning income exempt from tax and not the total investments.
ITAT New Delhi in the case of ITO (TDS) Vs. Nokia India P. Ltd. held that the payments made by the assessee company to Finland based as a consideration for review of design , construction and quality control plans from outside India are not in the nature of fee for technical services as defined in Article 13 of DTAA between India and Finland.
It was held by ITAT delhi in the case of SC Jhonson Products Private Limited Vs. DCIT, that framing of assessment against a non existing entity/person is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect and can not be cured by application of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
