Since there is no mention of the approval sought from the CIT on the reasons, as recorded by the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings, the entire initiation has been vitiated and become bad in law.
Merely because a notice u/s 143(2) had already been issued and the assessee filed revised return thereafter, disclosing additional income towards capital gains, which was not correctly shown in the original return, does not tantamount to detection of concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act .
The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the concerned Chartered Accountant has admitted that the impugned orders of CIT(A) were handed over to him by the assessee in the first week of April, 2011 for filing the appeals before ITAT.
The assessee’s second ground is in respect of disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses of a rented premises at Rs. 42.66 lacs. The assessee, it was explained, had taken an office premises on rent in October, 2007 for a period of five As the said premises was old and not in use for a long time, it incurred the impugned expenditure towards repair and renovation of the said premises.
Assessee argued that No expenditure directly or indirectly was incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income and further the investment in shares was made in earlier years out of own funds and not out of borrowed funds, therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is to be made.
By virtue of fiction created by section 64(IA) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the incomes of properties owned by the two minor daughters, were clubbed in the hands of the assessee since the date of purchase of the said properties.
Whether the assessee firm can get the benefit of Sec. 54EC, even though an investment in respect of capital gain is made by the two partners individually in the notified securities e. bonds issued by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (RECL)?
The ITAT Chennai in the case of Vishwak Solutions Pvt. Ltd. held that the payments made to US based entity towards securing server space in US is not in the nature of fee for technical services or royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of India – US DTAA.
Learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd [ 2014 TIOL 1586 HC DEL IT] wherein it is held that unless there is an exempt income, disallowance under section 14A cannot be invoked.
The auditor’s remuneration and legal & professional charges incurred for maintenance of statutory books and its audit etc. were required to be incurred irrespective of whether the Company had any income or not and hence, there was absolutely no basis for considering a part of such expenditure towards earning of exempt income.
