Explore the ITAT Kolkata ruling in DCIT vs Ashok Walia case for assessment year 2009-10. Key issues include return filing date and admission of additional evidence.
Here in the present case, there is no linkage or nexus between the funds borrowed by assessee and the impugned investments, hence, no interest expenditure can be disallowed by mechanically applying the Provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules.
The assessee earned income by way of dividend. During the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO asked the assessee for the details of expenditure incurred for earning the exempted income (dividend income).
The brief facts leading to above issue are that assessee incurred undisclosed expenditure for furniture, fixture, flooring etc. incurred in respect of Flat No. 501, at 20 Lee Road, Kolkata for asst. yr. 2008-09. The said expenditure was found recorded in RM-1 and RM-2. The expenditure of Rs. 35 lakhs was incurred by the assessee in connection with purchase of furniture of director’s flat at 20 Lee Road on behalf of M/s Fort Projects (P) Ltd. It is pertinent to note that no such addition of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of undisclosed expenditure was made by AO in very first place and this will be clear from perusal of assessment order for asst. yr. 2008-09,
The safeguard built in section 50C does envisage a situation that whenever assessee claims that the fair market value of the property is less than the stamp duty valuation of the property, a reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer and all these issues relating to valuation of the property – either on the issue of allowing a reasonable margin for market variations, or on the issue of making adjustments for agreements having been entered long ago, can be taken up, before the Departmental Valuation Officer and, therefore, subsequent appellate forums as well.
In the present case, the payment to the actual beneficiary is made by the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata and not by the Dy FA and CAO of Metro Railways Kolkata. No doubt, the tax deduction obligations are on the person who makes payment to the beneficiary, and it was an undisputed position that the payment for land acquisition was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this matter, Hon’ble Court also observed that the tax deduction obligation are on the person who “had money in his possession and was responsible for making the payment of that income to the assessee (i.e. actual beneficiary of compensation in this case).” It is important to bear in mind the fact that the assessee is this case was the person receiving the compensation in his own right and not in any fiduciary capacity. Therefore, even going by this principle, the tax deduction liability is on the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata who makes the payment to the person receiving compensation.
The service which is rendered by the Google is generation of certain text on the search engine result page. This is a wholly automated process. There is no dispute that in the services rendered by the search engines, which provide these advertising opportunities, there is no human touch at all. The results are completely automated and, as evident from the screenshots we have reproduced earlier in this order, these results are produced in a fraction of a second- 0.27 seconds in the screenshot reproduced earlier.
In our humble understanding, the provisions of Section 14A are indeed attracted whether or not the shares are held as stock in trade or as investments, even though the provisions of rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) cannot be invoked in such a case, and even though the provisions of rule 8 D(2)(i) are much narrower in scope than the scope of Section 14 A simplictor.
Assessee despite being given more than sufficient opportunity has not been able to explain the discrepancy in stock. No new document or evidence has been brought to the notice of the Bench, nor has the assessee been able to show how the document has been wrongly considered. As such neither on facts nor on law the assessee’s explanation is acceptable,
We have noted that the Assessing Officer’s observations to the effect that ‘business’ under section 28 has a very broad meaning and may be used in different connotations” and that it includes adventure in the nature of trade, as also his reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Rajputana Textiles (Agencies) Ltd. v. CIT 42 ITR 743 (SC), wherein it was held that where from the very beginning, purchase of shares is made with the intention of selling them, at a profit, it is an adventure in the nature of trade. However, we are unable to see any merits in these arguments either.
