Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Amitabh Bachan Corporation Ltd.,(supra) held that whether an expenditure was on revenue account or capital account is required to be examined in the light of the totality of all facts for this purpose. Evidence would be required in the form of documents and accounts and that, by merely looking at the balance-sheet and profit and loss account, one cannot infer the nature of the expenditure. Accordingly, relying upon their decision in Khatau Junkar Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 55 ,Hon’ble High Court concluded that such an exercise generally cannot be done by way of adjustments to the returns under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Ramesh D. Tainwala in ITA No. 3853/Mum/2010 wherein the ITAT “D” Bench Mumbai concluded that provisions of section 28(va)(a) would apply and consequently the amount received by that assessee would be chargeable to tax as business income and not under the head capital gains.
This Miscellaneous application has been filed by the assessee requesting for recall of the order dated 24.9.2010 of the Tribunal in ITA No.6830/M/05. Apparent mistakes have been pointed out in relation to grounds at Sl.No.(A), (D) and (I) raised by the assessee in the appeal.
Case of the revenue is that the intention of the donor apart from the gift deed not to be seen for concluding that it was a corpus donation. On the other hand, case of the assessee is that if discussion between the donor and the donee in the shape of correspondence etc. is seen then it would reveal that donation was made by the donor in order to establish an engineering and a management college in the name of his grand-father. The donor has specifically mentioned in this connection.
At the outset, what is evident is that a perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the balance sheet as filed before the bank whose finding of the ld. CIT(A) has not been challenged by the assessee. Obviously the finding of ld. CIT(A) and the balance sheet filed with the bank stands good. Once the difference found with the balance sheet filed before the bank authorities and the reconciliation of the same with the books of accounts would have to be done. How the assessee has arrived at the figures as shown in the balance sheet with the bank would have to be reconciled with the bank as maintained by the assessee. For this purpose we are of the view that the issue in this appeal must be restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication. The AO shall give assessee adequate opportunity to reconcile the difference. It is further directed that just because there is a difference addition should not be made if there are positive difference or negative which can be considered also. In the circumstances and with this direction in this appeal this issue is restored to the file of AO for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
Under section 254(2), the appellate Tribunal may, ‘with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record’, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) within the time prescribed therein. It is an accepted position that the appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act.
By Finance Act of 2001, the Parliament enacted section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect from 1.04.1962. Prior to insertion of sec. 14A, the Revenue had sought to disallow expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 242 ITR 450, held that where there was one indivisible business giving rise to taxable income as well as exempt income, the entire expenditure incurred in relation to that business would have to e allowed even if a part of income earned from the business was exempt.
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S Joshi (supra) has also noted the omission of section 47(ii) of the Act and insertion of section 45(4) of the Act with effect from 1.4.1988. Considering the entirety of the legal position, it has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court that amounts received by the partner on his retirement, are exempt from capital gains tax.
Short facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of transport of spirit and Molasses had acquired a new wind mill during the previous year. The total cost of the wind mill was Rs. 1,58,00,000/- and it was commissioned on 27.03.2005. Since wind mill was used for less than 180 days, depreciation was claimed at 50% of the normal rate.
Expenses having been incurred for the IPO through which assessees were also able to sell their shares, the expenses necessarily were, in our opinion, in connection with sale of such shares. Assessees could take advantage of clause (1) of Section 48 of the Act. Assessees had produced evidence in the form of Escrow Account to show that it had received only net amount after incurring the expenses. Assessees also produced Prospectus of IPO which clearly shows that they were obliged to meet pro rata share of IPO expenses. There is no case for the Revenue that any of the assessees claimed more than their share of expenses based on the ratio of shares sold. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the deduction claimed by the assessees for expenses incurred was unjustly disallowed. This disallowance is deleted.
