ADIT Vs. Ballast Nadam Dredging (ITAT Mumbai)- It was held that retention money withheld by the contractee pending completion of contract work does not accrue to the assessee/contractor in the year in which the amount is retained. We also observe that similar issue was also considered by ITAT in the case of Spirax Marshall Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that receipt of retention money against furnishing bank guarantee cannot partake character of income since it cannot be apportioned until guarantee period was over. The retention money may be received by the assessee; it cannot be apportioned until expiry of warranty period. We observe that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yatindra and Co. (supra) held that an amount received by assessee against bank guarantee was not accrued to the assessee during the year as no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage vested.
JDIT Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- The stand taken by the appellant in its return of income has been upheld by the ld. High Court. Since, the quantum additions in both the assessment years under appeal has already been deleted by the ld. ITAT, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) for either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Ys. 2003- 04 & 2004- 05. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the entire addition has been deleted the order of the CIT(A) holding that the penalty order does not survive cannot be faulted with.
ITO Vs. Berger Imp ex India (ITAT Delhi)- CIT (A) after considering all these submissions has observed that the assessee had started efforts and other activities for its trade though there is no purchase and sale during the initial period. The assessee had given employment to seven persons for marketing activities and has set up infrastructure for running the business at Chennai. The shop rent, electricity bill and telephone bills have been paid and on these facts it cannot be denied that the assessee had commenced the business. In the trade activity there is no preoperative period as the same is required in manufacturing activity and, thus, he has held that the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of business loss and depreciation and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the loss claimed by the assessee.
ACIT Vs. M/s Sikka Papers Mills Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- In this case the identity of the share holders has not been established in order to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, Assessing Officer issued commission u/s. 131(d) to the departmental officers in Lucknow and Agra as well as and asked for information 133(6) of the Act directly from the share applicants. The letters issued by registered post to the aforesaid share applicant companies u/s. 133(6) remained unserved while the departmental officers found that no such companies existed at the given address.
PTC India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.9.2011 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was placed before the Bench. The date of hearing was intimated to the assessee on the date appeal was filed. Signatures of the person filing the appeal in the Registry are available on record as such the appeal was passed over twice.
The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the fact that there is no bar to purchase agricultural land on which house was to be constructed. The fact is that subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 54F, where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a HUF, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereinafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed,
ACIT Vs. Mrs. Rajpal Sethi (ITAT Mumbai) – AO in the case of assessee while making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 has accepted the short term capital gain and the long term capital gain on sale of shares vide order dated 22.12.2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee’s case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Satpal Singh Sethi (supra). This being so and in the absence of any distinguishing features or contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforementioned cases, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the AO to accept the appellant’s claim of short term capital gain and long term capital gain on share transactions, where the delivery has been taken or given and Security Transaction Tax has been paid.
Kushal K. Bangia Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- In principle, though the scope of ‘income’ in s. 2(24) is very wide, a capital receipt is not chargeable to tax as income unless there is a specific provision to that effect. As the residential flat owned by the assessee in the society’s building was a capital asset in his hands, the compensation was a capital receipt. The department’s argument that the cash compensation was a ‘share in profits earned by the developer’ is not acceptable because it proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of the payer determines the nature in the hands of the recipient. However, as the said receipt reduced the cost of acquisition of the new flat, it had to be taken into when computing the gains from a transfer thereof in the future
Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP was concerned, it is observed that it is covered by the provisions of rule 10D sub-rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules. Section 92 C provides that the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods being the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. S. 92D provides that (i) every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof;
DCIT Vs. R. R.Builders (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the partners of the assessee firm are also partners of the firm M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai. We further find that the amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- each was withdrawn by Shri Rafique Shakur Shekhani and Shri Sayed Rasul Shaikh partners of the firm on 15.4.2005 from their partnership firm M/s M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai as per copy of cash book filed and the same amount was deposited by both the partners with the assessee firm on the same date.
