Tribunal in the case of Ganjam Treading Co. Ltd. (supra) has already considered this situation and held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCL Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) the disallowance of interest in relation to the dividend received from trading shares cannot be made. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A computed by the A.O. in relation to the stock-in-trade. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly upheld.
Supreme Court has reversed the High Court Judgment and held that Deduction u/s. 80-IA is not allowable on duty drawback amount. The issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the department stand allowed with no order as to costs.
The appellant had shown sale value as a result of transfer at Rs. 14,00,000/- whereas stamp authority has taken this value at Rs. 13,83,600/- it means that assessee had shown more sale consideration in sale deed. Thus, this case cannot be referred u/s 50C (2) of the IT Act to the DVO. The capital gain can be calculated under chapter – IV of computation of income from capital gain. Section 48 empowered to AO to calculate the capital gain. For calculation of capital gain full value of the transaction received or accruing as a result of the transfer
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during course of the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has received three residential flats at Hill Park from its sister concern M/s. British India Steam Navigation Co. (BISNCL) which was capitalized in the schedule of fixed assets at Rs. 79,03,460/-.
Admittedly, assessee has produced a register, which contained payments to various labourers. Admittedly, this register does not contain the addresses of the labourers nor it contains revenue stamp, nor is it signed by the Labour Department, no PF has also been deducted. Does all these wrongs in its entirety or individuality make the expenses incurred by the assessee deniable? Can this defect be held to be changing the mode of payment of the assessee from one mode to another? Here we would answer ‘no’.
Apprehension of the assessees that they have been made liable to pay a portion of tax u/s 179 of the Act, is unwarranted and misconceived. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, no person can be made liable to pay any tax for himself or on behalf of any other entity for which he has been associated unless a specific order is passed in the matter. In the present case, no such order u/s 179 of the Act has been passed.
The Ld DR argued that the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the exemption u/s 10B of the Act as the assessee had not filed prescribed audit report and had got software developed from outside. He further argued that assessee had not filed certified copies of invoices.
In the present case, during the course of scrutiny of the records of M/s Shah Precicast (P) Ltd. (Respondent), it was found that they had taken Cenvat credit on the strength of the Xerox copy of the bill of entry. Therefore, the Revenue issued a show-cause notice for wrong availment of Cenvat credit on the strength of Xerox copy of bill of entry and proposing penalty for suppression of facts with an intention to evade duty.
The recent judgment of Bombay High Court in case of MCHI vs. State of Maharashtra has caused further hardship to genuine flat buyers. The Hon’ble Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment made to definition of Sale. The Court has also upheld recent scheme of Maharashtra Govt. to levy VAT of 1% on agreement value of flat purchased or 5% of value of accretion made by the Developers over immovable property. The composition scheme of 1% is applicable in respect of agreement registered on or after 1st April 2010. However, set-off or deductions earlier claimed in respect of such agreements will have to be reversed.
Business of the taxpayer is banking and the business connection between the tenant and taxpayer has nothing to do with banking operation carried on by the taxpayer. Further, the Kerala High Court in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 568 has also taken a similar view. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of rental income.
