We find that the findings of the Tribunal on the assessment was not on the ground of treating the claim as not bona fide. We find that the assessment on the consumption of bottles made on the ground of alleged non-existence of two firms was rejected by the Tribunal by rendering a finding that the suppliers were very much in existence. On the 2% addition made to the bottles sent direct to the factory without entering into the books of accounts and on the price difference,
The very same issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.273 of 2012 dated 12.09.2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Shriram Properties & Constructions (Chennai) Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai-17) wherein one of us was a member (Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu, J). In that case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act holding that the assessee had not filed the revised return of income to offer the amount as income for the purpose of assessment
Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner that the assessment orders passed on remand are the subject matter of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal, as the case may be. It is, therefore, for the petitioner to work out its remedy in the said forum including appropriate interlocutory orders as against tax and interest. The writ petition filed challenging the letter demanding payment of arrears is, per se, not maintainable for the abovesaid reason. The petitioner, having availed the statutory remedy, has to seek indulgence in the appeals said to have been filed.
Admittedly, these two writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the respondent SEBI under Sections 11 and 11(b) of the Act 15 of 1992 against the company as well as Mr. A. Venkatramani, the promoter. As against that, an appeal has to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. Further Section 29 of the Act, 1992, enables the Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and the notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 5(2) is valid in law.
As far as the assessee’s claim on payment of additional interest is concerned, while confirming the Assessing Officer’s view that the payments were contrary to the RBI guidelines, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that all that the assessee could pay as per the RBI guidelines was 8% interest only and any amount paid over and above the permissible limit was against the public policy, hence, hit by Explanation 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As far as this line of reasoning is concerned, we find from the Circular issued by the RBI that there is ceiling on interest payable in current account/saving bank account and discretion is available on interest to be paid on term deposits. The circular reads as under:-
While working out the profits and gains which qualify for deduction under Section 80HH, one has to necessarily restrict the income which is derived from the industrial undertaking and nothing beyond. Thus, for the purpose of Section 80HH, the income of that industrial undertaking which got into the reckoning of the book profit for the purposes of Section 32AB has to be identified and that alone would be included in the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of working out the relief under Chapter VIA.
The payment by CRS & Sons Co. Ltd., on the basis of franchise agreement to various persons cannot be treated as payment to Directors who have substantial interest in the company and Section 2 (24) (iv) cannot be invoked.
Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of this court in CIT v. Ayesha Hospitals (P.) Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 266 (Mad.), wherein in respect of the claim made for the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee claimed the amounts spent on painting, relaying of the damaged floors, partitions, etc., as revenue expenditure. On an appeal before this court by the Revenue, it was pointed out that the assessee incurred expenditure for relaying of the damaged floors, painting and partition in respect of the leased property. Referring to the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468, this court pointed out that the expenditure incurred in respect of the maintenance of the leased premises was deductible as revenue expenditure.
In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpose of working out the limitation. Thus, on the search conducted on 19.1.1996 the notice of assessment was issued on 20.9.1996.
