Rajinder Mohan Lal Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)- impugned gifts cheques were in the name of the assessee and not in the name of the assessee’s daughter, whose marriage was solemnized and the quantum of such gifts were credited by the assessee to his bank account. It is also a fact that the sum of money received by the assessee were not transferred to the bank account of his daughter, whose marriage was solemnized. In view of the above legal and factual discussions and clear findings of the lower authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and, hence, the same are upheld. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
ITO Vs. Landmark Finance Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The facts are not disputed that the assessee was dealing shares as trader in shares as well as holding the shares as investment. It is not disputed that the assessee had kept both the portfolios separately and the mode of valuation of stocks held as investment and stock held as stock-intrade was different. The investments were valued at cost and it was shown in the balance sheet only whereas stock-in-trade was valued at cost or market price, whichever was lower and the loss was, accordingly, claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c. and allowed to the assessee.
Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal field by the revenue as un- admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
DCIT Vs. Shri Deepak Mitta (Delhi HC) – Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal filed by the Revenue is about Rs. 2.89 lacs i.e below the limit of Rs. 3 lakhs stipulated by the CBDT in their instruction no.3/2011 dated 9th February, 2011. instruction dated 9.2.2011 itself clarifies in para 11 that this will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011 and appeal in the instant case has been filed on 12.5.2011 in violation of the said instruction, we have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal of the Revenue, in limines.
Amarpali International Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee has adequate interest free funds available with the firm which have been used to make the advances during the year. She claimed that no nexus has been established between the interest bearing fund and advances to sister concerns. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that for making any disallowance in connection with the interest, it is incumbent upon the authorities below to give a finding with regard to the nexus between the interest bearing funds available with the firm and interest free advances made during the year. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice will be served, if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. Assessing Officer shall examine the assessee’s claim that sufficient interest free funds are available to assessee to give advances to the concerns. Accordingly, the issue stands remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer.
M/s Aithent Technologies Pvt Ltd. V/s. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In its Transfer pricing study, the assessee adopted CUP method and justified the interest free loan on the basis that it had sufficient interest free funds. The TPO rejected the claim and computed notional interest at the rate of 14percent, based on certain domestic borrowings of the assessee.. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that the cost incurred by the assessee was not a relevant consideration under the CUP method and held that it was irrelevant whether the loans were advanced out of own funds or out of borrowed funds and whether the interest free loan were commercially expedient for the assessee or not.
ACIT Vs. Afghan Crane Crusher (ITAT Delhi)- Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the aforesaid loans were duly recorded in the books of accounts and confirmations of loans were also filed before the Assessing Officer wherein the depositors accepted to have made interest free loans to the assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further observed that the unsecured loans have been raised by the assessee from relatives and friends in the financial year 2004- 05 for obtaining credit limit from banks and the impugned sums do not represent trading liability for invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. In view of the above facts Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer was legally and factually incorrect in invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and made disallowance of Rs. 13,80,000/-.
Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC).
Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – Assessee has raised a specific ground that order passed u/s 143(3) was not valid in as much as there is no proof of valid service of notice u/s 143(2) within the limitation period of 12 months, as per proviso to section 143(2). We further find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not properly given a finding on this issue. He has only observed that the grounds and the arguments of the assessee are not very strong. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should pass a speaking order on this issue incorporating his specific finding in this regard. Accordingly, we remit this issue to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the same afresh.
ACIT Vs Chetan Durgadas Mehra (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer considered the sale of shares by the assessee to the firm in which he is a Partner as a non genuine transaction. Consequently he re-worked out the P&L account as stated in page 8 of the assessment order and determined the loss from the business at a lesser figure of Rs.52,56,153/- as against Rs.1,95,98,779/- incurred by the assessee in the business of purchase and sale of shares and securities.
