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.
Shri A.S. Bindra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the assessment order, it has been mentioned that due to non-availability of evidence, the assessee has offered this amount as his income. That fact cannot go against the assessee in penalty proceedings as the assessee will be having right to contest the levy of penalty independently, apart from the findings recorded in the assessment order. Therefore, the relevant evidence is admitted as additional evidence and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for readjudication of the penalty proceedings after due consideration of the evidence being placed by the assessee on record. After giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and placing evidence on record, the AO will re-adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty or otherwise in accordance with law. We direct accordingly.
Income-tax Act Benefit u/s. 47(xiv) of the cannot be denied in case there is a delay in allotment of shares to the proprietor on conversion of a proprietary concern into a company
The decision of CIT Vs. America Counting Corporation 123 ITR 513, noted above also supports the view that taxes paid on behalf of the assessee is a perquisite or a benefit, but not income from business. It could not be taxed except under clause (iv) of Section 28 which provided that a benefit or perquisite was liable to be charged to tax.
DCIT v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- The Delhi Tribunal in this case has held that interest for deferment of advance tax is leviable under Section 234C of the Act where there is a shortfall in payment of advance tax while computing ‘book profit’ under the existing MAT provision under Section 115JB of the Act.
Mr. Isao Sakai Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Tax paid by the employer on behalf of the employee is perquisite and can not be included in salary for valuation of concessional accommodation / Rent- Free House Property etc.
Nimbus Sport International Pte. Ltd. v. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) -Coming to the issue about the advertisement revenue received by the assessee in Singapore for matches played abroad, it has not been disputed that the matches in question for which advertisements were given by the Indian company were all played in foreign countries. The assessee does not have a PE in India. In this eventuality, the revenue collected by it for the matches played overseas and telecast at overseas will not attract the theory of force of attraction for taxing them in India.
