The law stands very well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., (supra) that merely disallowing a claim of deduction raised by the assessee is not a ground to proceed u/s 271(1)(c). For penalty, it has to be either a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, concealment of income or at least the claim should have been proved to be a mala-fide one. In our considered opinion, the said eventualities do not exist in instant case. Therefore, the penalty in question does not hold ground.
Sec. 24 has been amended w.e.f. 01-04-2002. Before the amendment, various categories of expenditure like collection charges, insurance premium, ground rent, land revenue, etc., were allowable, but after the amendment, only two types of deductions are possible, namely, 30% of the total annual value and amount of interest paid for acquisition of property. No other deduction is possible and accordingly we hold that the amount of expenditure incurred on account of brokerage, professional consultancy, maintenance, etc., relating to the property is not allowable under the head ‘income from house property’.
On appeal, the assessee filed the details, which are required by the AO, before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) rejected the same. We find that under the similar circumstances in AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and details filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the AO with a direction to give opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the matter.
Major source of income credited by the assessee company in the profit and loss account is Other Income of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rent of Rs. 1,49,000/-. The assessee had not carried out any business activity in the current year nor the assessee has produced any evidences in support of its argument that it has actively pursuing its business activity. The profit and loss account reveals that the assessee credited Rs. 4,49,000/- as above and claimed expenditure of Rs. 5,24,298/- being administrative exp and depreciation.
These two stay applications are connected and issues are similar. These stay applications are preferred by assessees on the issue whether the long term capital gains and short term capital gains offered should be treated as business income or profession.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd reported in 322 ITR 0158(SC). has clearly held that the return of income is the only document where the assessee can furnish his particulars of income, where as in the instant appeal, the appellant company has not disclosed the receipt of premium received on renunciation of rights in its return of income nor in the computation of income accompanied with the return of income. So penalty for Concealment of Income is imposable U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee debited an amount of Rs.17,34,716/- being foreign exchange loss that arose due to re-statement of current liabilities. The liability had arisen in the earlier years due to consultancy services rendered by Alfred Mcalphine, UK. The assessee contended that the loss arising due to fluctuation in foreign exchange liabilities, when such liabilities are re-instated as on 31st March, is ascertained liability and not contingent liability. The AO rejected the contention of the assessee.
Provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.
Whether conversion of tenancy rights into ownership right falls under the realm of ‘transfer’ as envisaged in section 2(47) of the Act. The assessee was accepted as a tenant by the co-owners and as per the well settled law on this issue the tenancy cannot be equated with the ownership. The ownership is the bundle of rights but rights of the tenants are limited. Admittedly, the assessee’s tenancy was converted into ownership and that can be the subject matter of the capital gain as it is a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of section 2(47) r.w.s. 45 of the I.T. Act.
If TPO does not reject a comparable on the ground of functional incomparability then neither the AO or the revenue can take a plea of functional incomparability of the comparables chosen by the assessee in its TP Study. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee’s operative margin has to be held as within the range of 5% of the arithmetic mean of 18.97% of comparable companies and the same has to be accepted as ALP. For the reasons given above, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the DRP is directed to be deleted.
