Payment paid by company to ESI department for delay in payments was nothing but compensation and was compensatory in nature. Thus, the impugned amount was to be allowed u/s 37(1).
Briefly stated the assessee is a Partner in the firm M/s Balachandra Laboratories. The firm had property at Thane on which development rights were transferred to M/s Friends Development Corporation (FDC) for an amount of Rs.17.00 crores. The said firm paid one third of consideration to legal heirs and Ms Balachandra laboratories claimed deduction in their assessment. The assessee happens to be one of the legal heirs of Late Shri C N Bhatavadekar. In the course of inquiry and assessment proceedings the issue relating to taxing of capital gains in the hands of the firm resulted in allowing the claim made to M/s Videocon Properties Ltd at Rs.95.00 lakhs paid to avoid civil litigation consequent to the compromise reached before the Bombay High Court. However, an amount of Rs.5.29 crores i.e. 1/3 rd of the total amount paid to legal heirs of Shri C N Bhatavadekar (who had 33% share in the property) was not allowed on the reason that it was an appropriation of the firm’s income. There were other issues with reference to the cost of acquisition etc., in the firm’s case which are not relevant for the issue in the present appeal.
Vide a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 27-03-2009, it was held that the assessee has concealed the income of Rs.8,16,617/- which was taxed on account of estimation of profit. The First Appellate Authority has expressed that since the addition was in respect of Gross Profit and work-inprogress was based upon certain estimation, therefore, it was not a case of concealment, hence, deleted the penalty following the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Parabia (Transport) P. Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 361 (Guj).
Read the ITAT Ahmedabad order on interest U/s. 234B for the assessment year 1997-98. Learn about the appeal and dismissal grounds. Stay informed.
The assessee claimed that the agricultural income of the members of his family was around Rs.8 lacs per annum .But the AO found that only an amount of Rs. 3,37,152/-was reflected in the financial year 2005- 06 and Rs. 3,50,454/- in the Financial Year 2006- 07 and no basis or evidence was produced in support of agricultural income of Rs. 8 lacs. In these circumstances ,especially when admittedly no evidence was filed by the assessee to establish nexus between sale of agricultural produce and introduction of cash in capital account, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO. The situation remains the same even before us. The ld. AR did not refer us to any material, evidencing sale of agricultural produce . In the absence of any basis, we are not inclined to interfere.
Perusing the material available on record including the affidavit filed by the assessee to show that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the change of address was informed /known to the Department; we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, therefore, in the interests of justice, we consider it fair and reasonable that the matter should go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) to his file to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh and according to law
The issue for consideration before is whether the gift received by the assessee is genuine or not? As per the AO, gift of such a substantial amount was not justified to a nonrelative/ no blood relation and the creditworthiness of the donor is not adequate. The CIT(A) held that, in fact, the Assessing Officer has in his remand report clearly stated that “The donor has confirmed in his statement the fact of giving gift to the appellant during the year under consideration.
At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences i.e. vouchers relating to expenses, balances sheet for the period from 31.3.1999 to 31.3.2005 and bank statement of the assessee showing receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s Landline Builder Pvt.Ltd. vide sale agreement dated 23.3.1987 appearing at pages 100 to 215 of the assessee’s paper book. He further submits that the above additional evidence goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the same may be admitted and the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO to examine and decide the same afresh after due verification. On the other hand, the ld.DR while relying on the orders of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) submits that he has no objection, if the issue is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication
Withholding tax proceedings under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were barred by limitation, since it has been initiated beyond a reasonable period of four years. Further the Tribunal held that in the absence of period of limitation under Section 201 of the Act prior to an amendment2, a reasonable time period was to be read into it, which was within 4 years from the end of the relevant Financial Year
In this case, the issue which arose before the Honorable Delhi Tribunal was that whether income received by the assessee for provisioning of technical services in connection with prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil would be taxable under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income Tax Act,1961(‘the IT Act’) or section 44BB of the IT Act.
