. These three pertain to the same assessee. While in one appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the revision order dated 19th October 2007, passed by the learned CIT under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04, the remaining two appeals are cross appeals against CIT(A)’s appellate order in the matter of assessment framed to give effect to learned CIT’s revision order. As these appeals involve somewhat interconnected issues arising out of common set of facts and as these three appeals were heard together, all the three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.
DCIT Vs. M/s. Aditya Music (I) Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad)- Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is a manufacturer and seller of pre-recorded audio cassettes and CDs. In Profit and Loss A/c. for the years under consideration, the assessee-company claimed the expenditure of copyrights used for manufacturing at Rs. 4,49,95,728 for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 6,34,20,231 for A.Y. 2007-08 as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of the above expenditure treating it as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same.
NJP Surya Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)- In this case, it is on record that in earlier years, returns were non est. returns and the interest claimed cannot be considered as allowed to the assessee in the earlier years. This being so, interest waived in the present assessment year cannot be considered as income of the assessee. Reliance placed by the assessee in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Limited vs. ACIT cited supra supports our view on this issue. In view of the above, we allow the ground raised by the assessee.
Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee stated that the assessee during the year under consideration took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from one Shri Amit Kr. Jain, a close relative, by account payee demand draft. The assessee furnished copies of P&L Account, Balance Sheet, I. T. Returns, bank statement for FY 2006-07 relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08 along with confirmation from Shri Amit Kr. Jain.
.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) – The ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming that cash assistance is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) himself has allowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier assessment year and he is taking inconsistent view as far as the impugned assessment year is concerned. It is also the grievance of the assessee that the alternative plea that cash assistance is not to be taxed under the head “business” as it represented a capital asset which had no cost.
V.Swaminatha Iyer & Co. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) – On going through the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal placed before us, we find that the assessee is aggrieved on two counts namely disallowance of interest to loan creditors and disallowance of salary paid to lady partners. The issue of interest to loan creditors is specifically reflected only in the statement of facts whereas the issue of salary paid to lady partners is reflected only in the grounds of appeal. We are also constrained to state that the amount of interest agitated by the assessee as interest to loan creditors at Rs. 49,534/- is not confirmed as the correct amount at the time of hearing. As a lot of such missing links are here, we remit back the file to assessing authority for de novo consideration after hearing the assessee. The issues agitated may be re-examined by the assessing authority specially taking into consideration the fact that loan credits are brought down from earlier assessment year on which the assessee has been claiming interest in a consistent manner.
DCIT Vs. The United Western Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) – Section 234D of the Act provides for charging of interest on excess refund granted to the assessee. Section 234D has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.6.2003. Consequently, it is made out by the assessee that the same is applicable only from the assessment year 2004-05 onwards and not in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, no interest under section 234D could be levied for the instant assessment year. The assessment year before us is 1996-97, which is prior to the assessment year 2004-05.
Sri Suman Bose Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In respect to accrued interest, it is not clear whether the interest is received by assessee on accrual basis or on receipt basis. If the interest received on accrual basis the addition qua this year interest can be made in this year and not of entire interest. In case, interest is received on receipt basis the amount of Rs.24,000/- – Rs.12,600/- can be added in this year. This fact can be verified by the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
ACIT Vs. Shri Ravindrakumar Toshniwal (ITAT Mumbai)- – Tribunal in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia wherein it has been held that off market transaction is not a unlawful activity and there is no relevance in seeking details of share transaction from stock exchange when the sale was not on stock exchange and relying upon it for making addition.
DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction Co Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)] has held that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on tax liability of the assessee notwithstanding the fact that it was not raised before the learned CIT(A).
