We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CD placed at Pages 20 to 49 of the Paper Book. Annexure-XIV of the Tax Audit report gives the details of tax deductible under various sections of the Act. Page 1 of Annexure-XIV gives the details of payments on which tax has not been deducted at all.
It appears that there is a difference between the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act and those of Section 23(4) thereof. However, it is not so. As per Section 23(1)(c), if any part of the property was let out and was vacant during the year or any part thereof, and due to such vacancy, the annual rent received or receivable was less than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the lesser of the two amounts, i.e., t
A very heavy onus is placed on the assessee to explain the difference between the assessed income and returned income and the assessee in the instant case did not discharge the said onus. In the light of the discussion made above and conduct of the assessee, it is thus clear that all the material facts and particulars relating to the assessee’s computation of income were never disclosed by the assessee,
It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record.
The assessee in this case has used multiple year data in computing the arm’s length price. The TPO, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have held that, such action by the assessee is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus it tantamounts to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 20th September, 2008 for assessment year 2008-09 declaring nil income after claiming deduction of Rs. 332,29,787 under sec. 80-IC of the Act. Similarly in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee filed its return of income on 25th September, 2009 declaring nil income by claiming a deduction of Rs.299,88,505 under sec. 80-IC of the Act.
In the instant case, the assessee denied incurring any expenditure for earning income, which did not form part of total income during the course of assessment proceedings even when huge investments were made by the assessee in the shares for having controlling interest . In terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income,
There is no cogency in the ground raised by the Revenue that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has not duly afforded adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer to consider the submissions and evidences filed before him at the appellate stage. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has duly sent the documents furnished by the assessee at the appellate stage to the Assessing Officer for a remand report.
Now coming to the other aspect on the basis of which the AO disallowed the claim as to whether or not expenditure incurred as a result of compounding of violation of municipal laws & Environmental laws falls within the ambit of aforesaid explanation to sec. 37(1) of the Act, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 held that compounding of the offence cannot take away the rigors of the Explanation to S.37(1) in view of the expression ‘shall not be deemed to have been incurred’ used in that Explanation.
Even though the assessment order mentions date of receipt of profit on sale of shares as 4.2.2004 and the amount is claimed to have been received from the company M/s DN Kansal & Securities (P) Ltd., the AO or the ld. CIT(A) did not analyse the nature of transaction as to how it is loan or advance nor ascertained accumulated profits of the said company until the date of transaction.
