This appeal of Revenue for Asst. Year 2009-10 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad, dated 2nd July, 2012 vide appeal No.CIT(A)-XV/406/ITO-9(1 )/1 1-12 arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act), framed on 23/12/2011 by ITO, 9(1), Ahmedabad. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue
First ground of the assessee for claiming the deduction under section 80IB was that it had started production in Asstt.Year 2004-05. Asstt.Year 2006-07 is the third year. Deduction under section 80IB was granted in Asstt.Year 2005-06 in a scrutiny assessment.
CBDT itself has accepted the proposition that the share income from the firm received by the partners is exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act and under no circumstances can be taxed in the hands of the partners.
It was held that impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as dumb document which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer but when the basis i.e. quantum addition has itself been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench,
Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has sought to establish a direct nexus between assessees professional income from playing cricket along with his expenditure in question claimed u/s.37 of the Act.
In Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA Nos. 3045/Ahd/2013 & 104/Ahd/2014, decided on 17.01.2017], briefly, the assessee being a company manufacturing/trading in air conditioners filed return of income on 20.12.2006 stating total income of Rs.15,62,01,340/-. It however returned nil income after adjusting carry forward losses.
In view of these glaring facts, the assessment of Smt. Jaya Agrawal and the fact that the relevant purchases for AY 2004-05 have been held to be genuine, we see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting these additions. On the issues of Shri Chokshi, Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd., a catena of judgments from ITAT, Mumbai and Ahmedabad is available in favour of the assessee which view also stands confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Shri Mukesh Moralia.
These appeals raise an interesting issue with respect to interplay of Article 9 of India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and TP adjustments under domestic TP law.
By adopting tax planning, long-term loss on sale of shares suffered by assessee on off-market sale transactions can legitimately be adjusted against long-term capital gains on sale of land.
