Where Land Revenue records showed no crop was cultivated and no agricultural activity was undertaken on the land owned by the assessee before sale thereof and assessee produced no evidence of user for agricultural purposes other than sketchy and vague statements of neighbours, denial of deduction by AO under section 54B deserved to be upheld.
The taxpayer contended that the AO may invoke provisions of the Section 14A of the Act only after conducting necessary enquiries into the factual aspects. However, the Chennai Tribunal held that even in a case where the taxpayer claims that no expenditure was incurred in relation with the exempt income, the statute had provided for a presumptive expenditure which has to be disallowed by force of the statute. It means that even in a case where no expenditure is stated to have been incurred, the AO had to apply Rule 8D of the Rules. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 14A of the Act substitutes the requirement of factual evidence and the question of enquiry does not arise.
The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently pronounced its ruling in the case of SSL-TTK Ltd. (Appeal no. ITA No. 544/Mds/2011), wherein the Tribunal ruled that a notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer [“TPO”] under section 92CA (3) of the Act cannot be considered as a notice issued under Section 92D (3) and hence non-compliance of the taxpayer would not attract levy of penalty under Section 271 G1 of the Act. Further, the taxpayer had made substantial compliance of filing the information as required by the letter issued by the TPO and the arm’s length price was accepted by the TPO.
Fees paid to regularise violation in construction of a building pursuant to state government ordinance forms part of construction cost and depreciation is allowable on such cost under Section 32 of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further the Tribunal held that the restriction provided under Section 37 of the Act on deduction of penal expenditure is not applicable to depreciation claim covered under Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal has also held that the Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of Mamta Enterprises [2004] 266 ITR 356 (Kar) relied by the tax department is also not applicable to the facts of the case.
Software used by the assessee cannot be considered independent, but, only as a part of the service rendered by the assessee to its clients with regard to the development of BSC. By means of the Balance Score Card system developed by the assessee, the clients were getting an advantage which went much beyond the period of agreement between the assessee and its clients.
Para 2 of the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 24.3.2008 deal with the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors. Assessee had clearly admitted before Settlement Commission that the claim of purchase from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors were all bogus. Additional income of Rs. 9,05,87,044/- relating to assessment years 1999-2000 to 2003-04 was also offered by the assessee before Settlement Commission. Assessee having admitted that the whole of the purchases from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors was bogus, no reliance could be placed on its claim that there was an advance of Rs. 1,00,92,400/- given by it to M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors. No doubt, assessee had offered Rs. 5,95,43,410/- for assessment year 2004-05 as bogus purchases from M/s Sambhav Steel Distributors before Settlement Commission.
If Act authorizes a designated authority to collect tax for State, the same Act always permits the said authority to rectify any proceedings, which has resulted in double taxation. When the income of Rs. 4,28,750 has been assessed for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessment of the same amount for the impugned assessment year 2007-08 is a mistake apparent from the records. The assessing authority could have corrected it and if not, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have given a direction to rectify such a mistake apparent from the records. There is no great question of law involved in this.
The course of events in the instant case shows that the assessee was really contemplating the construction of a residential house. This intention of the assessee is very clear from the fact that within days of the sale of her old property, the assessee had purchased the new site for constructing a residential house. The old property was sold on 8-6-2006. The new landed property was purchased immediately on 5-7-2006. The events of sale and purchase and their proximity clearly demonstrate that the assessee had purchased the property only for the purpose of constructing a residential house. The old property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 34,73,447, out of which the assessee was accountable for long-term capital gains of Rs. 32,77,450. The assessee has invested Rs. 33,88,160 for the purchase of the land, which is more than the quantum of long-term capital gains. This again demonstrates the fact that the assessee had arranged the transaction in such a bona fide manner so as to claim the exemption available under section 54F.
Southern Metals & Alloys Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- The assessing authority had asked for details in respect of various creditors and in respect of the above stated trade creditors. The assessee had not furnished any particulars before the assessing authority. No confirmations were made by creditors also. On an examination of the records of the case, we find that even though the assessing authority had initiated the process of verifying the genuineness of the trade creditors, he has not brought that process to a logical end.
ACIT Vs. Kannappan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai)-The Tribunal found that the expenditures were not incurred for setting up of any business or initiating an expansion programme. The expenditures were incurred as a measure of value addition and for competing in the market. There was no basic improvement in the fundamental character of product already manufactured and processed by the assessee. It was in the light of those findings, the Tribunal has held that the disputed expenditures were in fact revenue in nature.
