The Tribunal referred to CBDT circular No. 8/2005, dtd. 29.08.2005 and opined that once fringe benefit tax is levied on expenses incurred, it follows that the same are treated as fringe benefits provided by the assessee as employer to its employees and the same have to be appropriately allowed as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively incurred by the assessee for the purpose of its business.
Mumbai Bench of ITAT observed that the term loan from IDBI was borrowed by the assessee for the purpose of acquiring a capital asset. Accordingly, ITAT held that the waiver of loan from IDBI was a capital receipt and not taxable u/s 28(iv) or 41(1). ITAT observed that the remission or reduction of liability, which is created on capital account, cannot to our mind result in a revenue receipt making it taxable u/s 28(iv) or 41(1) of the Act and that the waiver of such term loan does not constitute business and the waiver can not be held as income u/s.28(iv) or cessation of liability u/s 41(1).
Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 9 RC 637 ; 11 SCC 363 action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Income-tax Act, where no limitation is prescribed as in section 201 of the Act within that period of four years. In Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 323 ITR 130 (Del), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had approved the view expressed by the Special Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra).
DCIT Vs. Summit Securities Ltd. In view of the detailed discussion made above, we are with utmost respect unable to concur with the view expressed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Zuari Industries Ltd. (supra) and Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Paper Base Co. Ltd. (supra). Thus the question referred to the Special Bench is answered in negative by holding that the Assessing Officer was not right in adding the amount of liabilities being reflected in the negative net worth ascertained by the auditors of the assessee to the sale consideration for determining the capital gains on account of slump sale.
The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) in which he is or becomes a partner or member, by way of capital contribution or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and, for the purposes of section 48, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm, association or body as the value of the capital asset shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset.
Tribunal held that it was an impossible task for the assessee to comply with the time period laid down u/s 54EC. The delay in purchase due to non-availability of the bonds was held to be a reasonable cause, and the assessee was held to be entitled to exemption u/s 54EC. The Tribunal also noted that in the case of Ram Agarwal 81 ITD 163, on similar facts, it had been held by the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 54EC. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Briefly stated the assessee is a Partner in the firm M/s Balachandra Laboratories. The firm had property at Thane on which development rights were transferred to M/s Friends Development Corporation (FDC) for an amount of Rs.17.00 crores. The said firm paid one third of consideration to legal heirs and Ms Balachandra laboratories claimed deduction in their assessment. The assessee happens to be one of the legal heirs of Late Shri C N Bhatavadekar. In the course of inquiry and assessment proceedings the issue relating to taxing of capital gains in the hands of the firm resulted in allowing the claim made to M/s Videocon Properties Ltd at Rs.95.00 lakhs paid to avoid civil litigation consequent to the compromise reached before the Bombay High Court. However, an amount of Rs.5.29 crores i.e. 1/3 rd of the total amount paid to legal heirs of Shri C N Bhatavadekar (who had 33% share in the property) was not allowed on the reason that it was an appropriation of the firm’s income. There were other issues with reference to the cost of acquisition etc., in the firm’s case which are not relevant for the issue in the present appeal.
Perusing the material available on record including the affidavit filed by the assessee to show that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the change of address was informed /known to the Department; we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, therefore, in the interests of justice, we consider it fair and reasonable that the matter should go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) to his file to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh and according to law
The issue for consideration before is whether the gift received by the assessee is genuine or not? As per the AO, gift of such a substantial amount was not justified to a nonrelative/ no blood relation and the creditworthiness of the donor is not adequate. The CIT(A) held that, in fact, the Assessing Officer has in his remand report clearly stated that “The donor has confirmed in his statement the fact of giving gift to the appellant during the year under consideration.
At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has filed certain additional evidences i.e. vouchers relating to expenses, balances sheet for the period from 31.3.1999 to 31.3.2005 and bank statement of the assessee showing receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- from M/s Landline Builder Pvt.Ltd. vide sale agreement dated 23.3.1987 appearing at pages 100 to 215 of the assessee’s paper book. He further submits that the above additional evidence goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the same may be admitted and the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO to examine and decide the same afresh after due verification. On the other hand, the ld.DR while relying on the orders of the AO and the ld.CIT(A) submits that he has no objection, if the issue is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication
