M/s BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS LTD vs DCIT ITA No.120 of 2011 dated 9.4.2013 – Karantaka HC
Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL) was incorporated in the year 1969. The company became a sick industrial company within the meaning of SICA.It was proposed that 30 acres of land along with building and structure to be disposed of. The valuers vide their valuation report dated 15.3.2002 valued the said land at Rs.25 Lakhs per acre. The company had received an offer from Bhoruka Financial Services Limited (BFSL), a public limited company and also one of the group Companies offered to purchase 30 acres of land for Rs.25 Lakhs per acre. Land measuring 15 acres was sold in favour of BFSL.
The assessee company is a limited company whose shares are quoted in the stock exchange. The assessee is holding shares in BFSL. The assessee and other promoter shareholders are holding 98.73% shares in BFSL, whereas the public shareholders are holding the remaining shares. The assessee in the financial year related to the relevant assessment year 2006-07 sold its shareholdings in BFSL to the extent of 45,350 shares for a net consideration of Rs.20,29,08,626/- after paying Security Transaction Tax. The shares were sold to DLF Commercial Developers Limited. The assessee claimed the gain on sale of shares as exempt from taxation under Section 10 (38) of the Act. (more…)
The assessee is a company engaged in hospitality services. For the AY 2001-02, the assessee filed its return declaring loss of Rs.43,15,328. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act at a positive income of Rs.9,26,510. In the first appeal, the assessee substantially succeeded and most of the additions/disallowances were deleted. After giving the first appeal effect, the loss was determined at Rs.34,30,680. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was substantially allowed vide order dated 25th April, 2008.
Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 29th January, 2009, penalty of Rs.16,44,330/- was imposed inter-alia observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the explanation regarding additions/disallowances made in the assessment order resulting in reduction of returned loss. It was observed that the losses claimed could not be justified before the Assessing Officer and the additions had been finally upheld by the Tribunal. Concealment penalty was upheld in the first appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). (more…)
The assessee, for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1997-98 disclosed the lease rent income of Rs.6,00,000/-. The assessee had received Rs.80,00,000/- as lease rent deposit. The AO held that the interest on deposit should be taken into account for computation of the rent received by the assessee. Therefore, he assessed the annual letting value of Rs.20,40,000/- which includes notional interest in respect of the deposit. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by upholding the order of the Assessing Authority. (more…)
Profit ratio of previous years of the assessee can be compared without recourse to third party’s ratios – Raj HC
The assessee is engaged in liquor business and during the period relevant to assessment year 1991-1992, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4,15,32,865/- as against the declared profit of Rs.3,87,66,937/- by adopting a net profit rate of 20.5% as against the declared rate of 19.13% after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee, under Section 145 of the Act.
The AO held that the profit of the country liquor business of the assessee had to be determined in comparison with other analogous assessee engaged in the same line of business because considering the stiff competition for acquiring monopoly rights, it could be reasonably presumed that the assessees were likely to have profit comparable with each other. The AO compared the case of the assessee with a contractor of the adjoining area, M/s Malu Khan & Party, Bikaner, who had shown the net profit at 22.70% for the period in question; and assessed the assessee by taking 20.5% net profit instead of 19.13% as declared by him. (more…)
Excessive remuneration to partners cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(2) if it is within limits of S. 40(b) – Allhbd HC
The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export/sale of brass art ware. The assessee filed its return of Income for AY 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring a total income of Rs. 57,68,627. During the course of assessment proceeding the AO noticed that the assessee had paid remuneration to its partners to the tune of Rs. 39,31,965/- whereas it has paid total salary to its employees only Rs. 486918/-.
The AO stated that the partnership deed does not specify the functions and duties in respect to working partners justifying the remuneration of Rs. 13,10,665/- to each of its partners when barely a total salary of Rs. 486918/- was paid to all its employee. The remuneration paid to working partners was highly excessive. On this point the Assessing Officer allowed the remuneration upto Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum to each of the partners. (more…)
The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business as agent of post office schemes, PPF, RBI Bonds, LIC, Mutual Funds etc. on commission basis. The assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 20,85,695/- on account of commission expenses. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO required the assessee to furnish complete details of commission paid with proof of TDS deducted and deposited on the commission so paid. Since, no TDS was deducted u/s 194H, the AO disallowed the commission u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of tax. (more…)
In AY 2008-09 the assessee collected employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund and ESIC but did not pay it within the due date prescribed by the relevant legislation. The amount was, however, paid before the due date of filing the ROI. The AO assessed the said amounts as income u/s 2(24)(x) but declined to grant a deduction u/s 36(1)(va) as the amount had been paid after the due date. The CIT(A), relying on Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC) and AIMIL 321 ITR 508 (Del) held that the amounts had to be allowed as a deduction u/s 43B as they had been paid before filing the ROI. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, HELD reversing the CIT(A): (more…)
The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 11.05 crore towards interest u/s 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the computation of income under the head “Income from house property”. On perusal of its details, the Assessing Officer noticed that it comprised of the interest of Rs. 9.48 crore and prepayment charges of Rs. 1.56 crore. The Assessing Officer held that the prepayment charges of Rs. 1.56 crore would not fall u/s 24(b) of the Act. Resultantly, the deduction was denied for such amount. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. (more…)
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of rectified spirit and IMFL, marine products and trading of feed and beer. The assessee had received Inter-corporate deposits from M/s. IFB. Assessee held 18.82% of the shares of M/s. IFB. The AO treated the same as a loan received by the assessee from M/s. IFB. and invoked the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. An amount of Rs.17.5 cr. was deposited by M/s. IFB through RTGS in the bank account of the assesee but Rs.12 cr. out of the same was immediately returned as it was deposited without the assessee’s permission.
On appeal, the CIT(A) had accepted the contention of the assessee that the Inter corporate deposit was only to an extent of Rs.11.20 cr. However, the CIT(A) had treated the Inter corporate deposits as a loan and had consequently treated the amount of Rs.11.20 cr. as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. (more…)
Asst DIT v M/s Clifford Chance (ITA Nos. 5034/Mum/2004, 5035/Mum/2004, 7095/Mum/2004, 3021/Mum/2005 AND 2060-61/Mum/2008) (Mumbai Special Bench)
The assessee is a U.K. partnership firm of Solicitors. It is engaged in providing international legal services. During the years under consideration, it rendered legal consultancy services in connection with different projects in India. Although it did not have an office in India, some part of the work relating to the projects in India was performed in India by its partners and employees during their visits to India. For assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-2002 and 2003-04, the returns of income were filed by the assessee declaring NIL income on the ground that the aggregate period or periods of stay of its partners and employees during the said years did not exceed 90 days and its income therefore was not taxable in India in these years. (more…)