Unless there is a finding that assessee’s investment is not business activity and the funds are not utilized for the purpose of business, disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) does not arise. There is no disallowance under section 14A in this year as the dividend income was taxable. Therefore, the interest disallowance has to be considered under section 36(1)(iii). If there is income or loss under the head capital gains, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) pertaining to the investment activity is also to be considered as deduction, while working out the capital gain.
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Indisputably, the documents placed at sl. no. 3 on page no.15-20 of the paper book viz. affidavit of Ms. Anjana Vohra, her confirmation and PAN details were never considered by the AO, having been submitted before the AO after the conclusion of hearing on 23.12.2009. There is no sl. no.4 in the paper book; admittedly sl. nos. in the paper book having been wrongly numbered. Though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant submissions of the assessee in the impugned order and these documents are stated to have been placed before him, he did not record his specific findings in the light of these documents and merely affirmed the order of the AO.
We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that Assessing Officer made the impugned addition and CIT(A) confirmed the same, but inadvertently mentioned about addition of Rs. 90,000/- instead of Rs. 1,50,000. Since addition is on estimate basis and assessee has also given some basis for low withdrawals such as getting facilities from employer, free of cost etc, therefore, assessee deserves part relief. As such, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if the addition made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is restricted to Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. So, assessee gets relief of Rs.60,000/-.
The assessee has shown long term capital gains and short term capital gains on buying and selling of shares and mutual funds, but, the revenue treated the same as business income based on the claim of the assessee in AY 2004-05 as trading activity of the said transactions. The only dispute between the assessee and revenue is that whether the assessee’s claim of treating the income arising out of selling and buying of shares out of the capital gains is correct or treating the said income is a trading activity as held by the revenue based on the decision in AY 2004-05 is correct.
It has been observed by the AO that waiver of ‘term loan’ is not trading liability, expenditure or loss as envisaged under section 41(1) of the Act. In other words, he has not invoked the provision of section 41(1) of the Act but treated the waiver of principle of amount of ‘term loan’ chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’
The taxpayer contended that the AO may invoke provisions of the Section 14A of the Act only after conducting necessary enquiries into the factual aspects. However, the Chennai Tribunal held that even in a case where the taxpayer claims that no expenditure was incurred in relation with the exempt income, the statute had provided for a presumptive expenditure which has to be disallowed by force of the statute. It means that even in a case where no expenditure is stated to have been incurred, the AO had to apply Rule 8D of the Rules. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 14A of the Act substitutes the requirement of factual evidence and the question of enquiry does not arise.
Revenue contending that sale took place on 24.02.05 and thereby the investment made u/s. 54EC on 30.08.2005 is beyond the prescribed period of six month. Once the board of directors approve the transfer, then only the process of transfer of shares can be said to be completed in case of a private limited company. The Annual Return filed before the ROC disclosed that the date of registration of transfer was 28th February 2005, confirmed by purchaser. Board resolution approving transfer of shares was passed on 25th February 2005.
It is sine qua non for application of Section 50 C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both, but then a leasehold right in such a capital asset cannot be equated with the capital asset per se. We are, therefore, unable to see any merits in revenue’s contention that even when a leasehold right in land or building or both is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked.
In the instant case, indisputably the society is running a school since 2003 and has been continuously allowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Ignoring these aspects, the ld. CIT in the impugned order rejected the request for registration while observing that the society did not place before him or the Addl. CIT, original instrument of its establishment and that it was controlled by family members of Shri Rajinder Singh while cash payments had been made without deduction of TDS.
