ACIT Vs. M/s Reliance Land Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee proved that interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. (7% interest on Rs. 538 crores) amounting to Rs. 2,78,58,082/- has been received from Swan Consultants (P) Ltd. on account of loan advanced to them. Further, the loan was taken on 28.4.2006 and given also on 28.4.2006. Similarly, interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. amounting to Rs. 5,60,54,795/- on account of loan of Rs. 300 crores @ 11% interest taken on 29.1.2007 has been given to Swan Consultants P. Ltd. on the same day on which equal amount of interest has been received from them.
Sunita Gupta Share Brokers Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- In ‘Multan Electric Supply Co. Ltd..’ (supra), it has been held, inter alia, that any profit which arises on the forfeiture of shares is neither a revenue receipt, nor profit on the working of the company, but is simply the circulating capital of the company, and as such, a capital asset. Taking note of this, in ‘Asiatic Oxygen Ltd.'(supra), it was observed that Schedule VI – Part I of the Companies Act contains the form in which the balance sheet is to be prepared by the company and it indicate that all capital reserves of the company should be disclosed under the head ”Reserves and Supply” in the liability side of the balance sheet; that the assessee had credited the amount in respect of the forfeited shares under the head ‘capital reserve’; that thus, the Companies Act itself treats the profit on forfeiture of shares as capital reserve not available for distribution as evidence; that it could not therefore be held that the profit arising to the company on forfeiture of shares is a trading or business profit assessable in the hands of the company;
M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011.
Pradeep Khanduja Vs ITO – ITAT Delhi – even after passing of the assessment order, the assessee did not move any application before the ld. CIT(Appeals) for admission of additional evidence, which has now been filed before us, and which is sought to be admitted. Rule 10 deals with filing of affidavit and states that where a fact, which cannot be borne out by, or is contrary to, the record is alleged, it shall be stated clearly and concisely and supported by a duly sworn affidavit.
Delhi ITAT ruling on ACIT vs. M/s Global Vantedge – Exclusion of leased telephone lines from fringe benefits. Rs. 26,56,792 expense deleted.
Lions Club of Calcutta Hastings Vs DIT (Exemption)- (ITAT Kolkata)- In the present case no show cause notice has been issued to the assessee. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this contention of the lad that the provisions contained in section 293C of the Act enables the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax to withdraw approval. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove are of the view that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in withdrawing approval once granted because the Legislature in all its wisdom has sought to omit this proviso to section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and after omission of the said proviso, the approval once granted shall continue to be valid in perpetuity unless and until a show cause notice is issued by the concerned CIT showing his intention to withdraw already granted such approval.
Southern Metals & Alloys Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- The assessing authority had asked for details in respect of various creditors and in respect of the above stated trade creditors. The assessee had not furnished any particulars before the assessing authority. No confirmations were made by creditors also. On an examination of the records of the case, we find that even though the assessing authority had initiated the process of verifying the genuineness of the trade creditors, he has not brought that process to a logical end.
ACIT Vs. Kannappan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai)-The Tribunal found that the expenditures were not incurred for setting up of any business or initiating an expansion programme. The expenditures were incurred as a measure of value addition and for competing in the market. There was no basic improvement in the fundamental character of product already manufactured and processed by the assessee. It was in the light of those findings, the Tribunal has held that the disputed expenditures were in fact revenue in nature.
ACIT Vs. L&T Western India Toll Bridge Ltd (ITAT Chennai)- It was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums.
In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs. Similarly, for the assessment year 2002-03, the Revenue has assailed the deletion of Rs.5,11,494/-. The tax effect here is also less than Rs.3 lakhs and even below Rs.2 lakhs. we are of the opinion that Circular No.3/2011 of CBDT will apply and due to low tax effect, the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. There is no case for the Revenue that the issue involved has got any cascading effect over other years or on the assessments of any group of which assessee is a part.
