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.
The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act.
A reading of Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), makes it clear that revenues on account of mobilization are to be brought to tax in India. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra) has been rendered by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, which happens to be the jurisdictional High Court in the present case. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), therefore, is squarely applicable to this case.
There is no material that shares and securities purchased in the year under consideration and classified as investment in books were actually intended to be held as long term investment. Profits realised by the sale of shares may be capital gain, if the seller is an ordinary investor changing his securities, but it may be business income, if the seller of the shares is trading in shares.
Subsequent reversal of a transaction among group entities isn’t colourable device, if effect carried in ledgers (a) Assessee is a charitable institution, there is no change in it’s objects. It carried on educational institutions and intended to further its objects by opening new schools and a university. (b) APIL owned reserved educational plots and it’s agreements to sale of such reserved plots with group educational trust do not carry any element of primary suspicion.
AO and the CIT(A) did not make any effort to verify the confirmations, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors in question and they also ignored the fact that the transaction of cash credits received and its repayment were made through bank and we also hold that the authorities below did not bring any incriminating material or evidence against the assessee trust to establish that the amount shown in the balance sheet as cash credits amounting to Rs.1,70,000 actually belonged or was owned by the assessee trust itself.
