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.
ACIT Vs. L&T Western India Toll Bridge Ltd (ITAT Chennai)- It was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums.
In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs. Similarly, for the assessment year 2002-03, the Revenue has assailed the deletion of Rs.5,11,494/-. The tax effect here is also less than Rs.3 lakhs and even below Rs.2 lakhs. we are of the opinion that Circular No.3/2011 of CBDT will apply and due to low tax effect, the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. There is no case for the Revenue that the issue involved has got any cascading effect over other years or on the assessments of any group of which assessee is a part.
.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) – The ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming that cash assistance is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) himself has allowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier assessment year and he is taking inconsistent view as far as the impugned assessment year is concerned. It is also the grievance of the assessee that the alternative plea that cash assistance is not to be taxed under the head “business” as it represented a capital asset which had no cost.
V.Swaminatha Iyer & Co. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) – On going through the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal placed before us, we find that the assessee is aggrieved on two counts namely disallowance of interest to loan creditors and disallowance of salary paid to lady partners. The issue of interest to loan creditors is specifically reflected only in the statement of facts whereas the issue of salary paid to lady partners is reflected only in the grounds of appeal. We are also constrained to state that the amount of interest agitated by the assessee as interest to loan creditors at Rs. 49,534/- is not confirmed as the correct amount at the time of hearing. As a lot of such missing links are here, we remit back the file to assessing authority for de novo consideration after hearing the assessee. The issues agitated may be re-examined by the assessing authority specially taking into consideration the fact that loan credits are brought down from earlier assessment year on which the assessee has been claiming interest in a consistent manner.
A reading of the provisions of section 80-IA(10) shows that when business transaction is so arranged that it produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits, which might be accepted to arise in such eligible business, then the Assessing Officer is empowered to restrict the allowance of deduction under section 80-IA to the amount of profit, which might reasonably be deemed to have been derived from the normal business transactions.
