1. S. 2(15): Charitable purpose

–main objection – not for commercial nature – exemption [S.12AA].

The assessee was incorporated under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, with the main objective of developing a training and research center to facilitate skill development for the workforce engaged at various levels in the garment and textile industry. It had applied to seeking registration under section 12AA, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Exemption) because the assessee’s objects had elements of a business/commercial nature.

The Tribunal noted that the Memorandum of Association shows that the assessee was established to develop the garment and textile industry workforce. Considering the objects in their entirety and reading them harmoniously rather than disjointly, it is found that the objects are to promote the garment industry in general, not for commercial /business nature. It will be covered under section 2(15) for the ‘general public utility’. Further, the Commissioner (Exemptions) must examine the material compliance of other laws to grant or reject the exemptions (the material may be used as supporting documentation as required under the law). The assessee company has been established and incorporated under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. Once another arm of the government administering the company law legislation has examined the objects and granted the registration under section 8, the same is allowable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ITA Nos. 49/JP/2021 dated 02-11-2021) (AY. 2003 – 04)

Gear Training & Research Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (2022)

216 TTJ 456/134 taxmann.com 89/192 ITD 655 (Jaipur – Trib.)

2. S. 2 (47) : Capital Gains – Applicability – Agreement to sale vis-a-vis Registration – Provisions of Sec 50C can be applied on the year in which provisions of S 45,48 r/w s 2(47) are triggered.

Agreement to sell was entered in A.Y 200-05 along with parting of possession and full value of consideration too was received. Assessee offered the Capital gains in AY 2004-05. As, the Registration was done in subsequent year, AO reopened the assessment for AY 2005- 06 and invoked provisions of Sec 50C, and made addition of difference between the sale consideration and FMV as determined by stamp duty valuation of the year of registration.

On appeal the Tribunal held that 50C has no applicability in AY 2005-06, and there was no failure on part of assessee in disclosing the facts, which can warrant the re-opening as well as additions by applying 50C in AY 2005-06. (ITA No. 7432/Mum/2012 (AY. 2005-2006) dt 27.01.2022

Standard Chartered Bank v. DCIT (Int. Taxation) (2022) 216 TTJ 132 (Mumbai)(Trib.)

3. S. 5 : Income – Accrual – Interest Income qua ICDs whose recovery is doubtful and legal proceedings have been initiated – Held, addition of Interest on ICDs cannot be sustained.

Assessee Company had advanced certain amounts being ICDs, which were doubtful of

recovery, and the legal action was initiated against said parties. The said ICDs were shown as doubtful of recovery and no interest was provided on said doubtful ICDs. AO was of the view that, as assessee company has yet not given up its claim, by initiating criminal proceedings and suits for recovery against defaulting parties, assessee was required to account for interest income as per the mercantile system of accounting, and thus added notional interest on impugned deposits in question, which was upheld by CIT(A).

Tribunal held that, though the assessee company has not given up its claim and was hopeful of recovery, nor the amounts were w/off in books cannot be the determinant factor to hold that interest income has accrued. Furthermore, in the instant case as the department it has accepted in other years that no addition qua the interest income on accrual basis with respect to ICDs which are doubtful of recovery, addition in the year under consideration cannot be sustained. (ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012. (AY.2004-05 & 2005-2006) dt.30.12.2021

Frick India Ltd v. DCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 146 (Delhi)(Trib.)

4. S. 11 : Exemption – filing of audit report in Form 10B is procedural requirement can be fulfilled even at a later stage by showing a sufficient cause – deduction u/s 11 to be allowed.

The Assessee is a registered charitable trust whose claim for deduction was disallowed for non-filling of audit report in Form 10B. On being brought to notice, the Assessee uploaded the audit report and filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. The said application was rejected by the AO and which was upheld by the CIT(A) on the ground that Form 10B was not furnished before the

due date of filing return of income. The ITAT observed that though the audit report in Form 10B was not filed within the due date of filing the return of income it was available before the CIT(A) since it was uploaded much before filing the section 154 application. The ITAT found that the Assessee has complied with the procedural requirement and directed the AO to grant necessary deduction under S. 11 of the Act. (CIT v. Xavier Kalavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (2014) & Sarvodaya charitable Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) reported in (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat)) (ITA No. 669/SRT/2018 Dt. 28.02.2022)(AY 2014- 15)

Trinity Education Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) (2022) 94 ITR 77 (Trib.)(Surat)

5. S. 11 : Exemption – AO observed that the activities carried out were in the nature of business activity and therefore, the Assessee was hit by the proviso to section 2(15) and ceased to have any ‘charitable purpose’ – objects actually carried out by the Assessee throughout the AY are relevant for decide the question of claim for exemption

The claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by Assessee was rejected by the AO because according to AO the Assessee was carrying out objects of general public utility and generated income from letting out of building and cultural hall, etc. which was in the nature of business activity and therefore, the Assessee was hit by the proviso to section 2(15) and ceased to have any ‘charitable purpose’. The decision was upheld by CIT(A). The ITAT thoroughly examined the Income and Expenditure Accounts and observed the activities undertaken by the Assessee throughout the year and it came to a finding

that the assessee had actually carried out those objects which could be classified as Medical relief to poor patients, education to deserving students and relief to the needy sections of the society and shied away from taking up any objects for ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’. Therefore, the ITAT held that proviso to S. 2(15) is not attracted. The Tribunal held that while the objects and activities of the trust are germane at the time of grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, what becomes relevant for consideration at the time of assessment is to see which of the objects, having charitable purpose, were actually carried out so as to decide the question of exemption. It observed that the AO did not dispute the fulfillment of any other requirement for claiming exemption u/s11 of the Act and therefore held that the Assessee is entitled to exemption. (ITA No. 907/PUN/2017, dt. 07.03.2022)(AY 2010-11)

Oswal Bandhu Samaj v. ITO (Exemptions) (2022) 94 ITR 78 (Trib.)(Pune)

6. S. 11(1)(a) : absolute exemption for Trust – the section does not state that the exemption would be allowed only when the amount spent for the objects of trust is less than the gross receipts.

Assessee a duly registered trust incurred excess expenditure for the objects of the trust against its gross receipts earned during the year. The Assessee claimed an exemption u/s 11(1)(a) at the rate of 15% of its gross receipts and claimed balance deficit being excess of expenditure over receipts to be carry forward to subsequent years. AO rejected the claim of the Assessee u/s 11(1)(a) on the basis that since there was excess of expenditure over gross receipts the assessee is not entitled to any accumulation as there is no surplus receipts left after application for current year. Accordingly, no carry forward of deficit was allowed to be carried forward to

subsequent years either. CIT(A) held that the claim u/s 11(1)(a) is unfettered and the said section does not lay any specific condition for allowability of such exemption and set aside AO’s order. The ITAT upholding the CIT(A)’s order further relied upon the order of Supreme Court in case of Subros Educational Society [(2018) 303 CTR 1] and held that any excess expenditure incurred by trust in earlier AY would be allowed to be set-off against income of the subsequent years S. 11 of the Act. (ITA No. 1371/M/2021 Dt. 28.02.2022)(AY 2015-16)

Dy. CIT v. Dr. D. Y. Patil Educational EnterprisesCharitable Trust (2022) 94 ITR 65 (Mum)(Trib.)

7. S. 11 & 12A(2): Registration – Benefit of Registration granted in subsequent year – Held, the benefit of registration will be conferred even to earlier years assessment proceedings which are pending as on date of such registration.

The assessee Trust filed its Return of Income on 17.01.17 claiming exemption u/s 11. The registration was granted on 16.05.17, ie after filing of Return, but before issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) on 20.09.17. AO denied the exemption on the ground that the assessment proceedings must be pending when the registration is granted. CIT(A) also concurred with the view of AO.

On Appeal Tribunal, relying on SC decision in Auto & Metal Engineers & Ors V Union of India 146 CTR (SC) 379, held that, assessee trust is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act , since the assessment proceedings commence with the filing of return and not when notice is issued for the first time u/s 143(2). (ITA No. 288/Pune /2020 (AY.2016-17) dt 03.02.2022

Sansthan Shree Eknath Maharaj Vishwastha Mandal v. ITO (Exemption) (2022) 216 TTJ 249 (Pune)(SMC)(Trib.)

8. S. 12AA & 2(15): Registration

–Payment of franchisee fees for achieving the educational objects of the society was held as justified in first round of appeal, wherein Tribunal decided the matter in favour, and set aside the matter to PCIT(E) for examination of some other issues. PCIT(E) having not doubted the charitable activities of the school, order denying registration under 12AA was held to be bad in

The issue of Registration was set aside for specific findings on two issues before PCIT (Exemptions). Tribunal in first round had given finding that payment of franchisee fee to ZL is justified.

PCIT(E) during remand proceedings had not doubted charitable activities of the school, and also no adverse inference was drawn on the two issues for which matter was remanded, and passed the order refusing sec 12AA registration.

Tribunal, held that the order passed by PCIT(E) is bad in law, as, jurisdiction of PCIT(E) was limited to verification of issues for which matter was set aside, and cannot override the finding of the co-ordinate bench, and was required only to look into those aspects for which case has been set aside. PCIT (E) having accepted the main object of education, and having no adverse inference on two issues for which matter was set aside, denying registration u/s 12AA on the ground that the assessee society is a frachisee of ZL is bad in Law. (ITA No. 174/Asr/2020 (AY. 2017-18) dt 14.10.2021

Lord Shiva Educational Welfare Society v. CIT(Exemption) (2022) 216 TTJ 80 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

9. S. 12(AA) : Refusal of Registration – Application decided on ex parte on basis of material available on record on merits – Non-compliance was due to shifting of office – Opportunity given to decide after considering response of the assessee.

Assessee a state Government organization failed to comply with notices in response to application for registration. Assessee admitted the non-compliance due to shifting of its office. However, based on records available, CIT(E) passed an ex parte order, rejecting the registration u/s 12AA for the reason that it could not verify the genuineness of the charitable activities with the objects of the Society.

On Appeal the Tribunal, based on reasoning by the assessee society that it was in process of shifting its office at relevant time, set aside the matter to CIT(E) for deciding the matter afresh. (ITA No. 888/Ind/2018 dt 10.02.2022)

M P Council for Vocational Education & Training– CIT (Exemption) (2022) 216 TTJ 142 (Indore)(Trib.)

10. S. 12(AA) : Registration – Scope of inquiry – CIT(E) while granting registration has to satisfy himself about the objects of the trust and its activities, and cannot go beyond to verify the violations referred to under Ss. 11(1)(a) and 13(1)(c).

Assessee company incorporated u/s 25 of the Companies Act, filed an application in Form No 10A for registration u/s 12AA. The CIT(E) while processing the application, observed that, although main objects are charitable in nature,

several incidental objects are commercial in nature as also the intent to carry out activities outside India are contrary to provisions of sec 11(1)(a), and thus rejected the application for registration.

On Appeal, the Tribunal held that, considering the main objects of the assessee being charitable in nature, and assessee proposes to carry out its activities in accordance with its objects, the assessee is entitled for registration. Furthermore, the question of looking into violations u/s 11(1)(a) , or intentions to carry out objects which are commercial in nature will be examined while granting benefit of exemption u/s 11, and not while granting registration u/s 12AA. (ITA No. 3197/ Chny/2018 dt 03.12.2021)

Environmental & Social Research Organization v. CIT (Exemptions) (2022) 216 TTJ 221 (Chennai) (Trib.)

11. S.10A & 10AA: Exemption – Interest Income earned on short term fixed deposits of unutilised funds, was held to be not eligible to be classified as profits of business, and hence not entitled for purpose of deduction u/s 10A/10AA.

Assessee claimed deduction u/s 10A/10AA on items reflected in other Income being Interest on short term fixed deposits made of unutilised funds. AO rejected the claim and held that deduction is not available u/s 10A/10AA.

On Appeal Tribunal held that, for exemption u ss 10A/10AA the amount must first be eligible to be covered within qualifying amount, and must fall under description of ‘profits of the business undertaking’, and not any income earned de hors the business of the undertaking. Since the Interest on fixed deposit cannot be classified as business income, amount cannot be considered as part of qualifying amount for purpose of deduction u/s 10A/10AA. (ITA No. 267/Pune /2018 (AY.2010-11) dt 09.03.2021

Barclays Shared Services (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 228 (Pune)(Trib.)

12. S. 22 & 28(1) – Income from House Property – Vis-a-vis Business Income – Rental Income earned by assessee by renting out its warehouse building, who is not in business of letting out properties, cannot be assessed as Income from business or profession, but has to be assessed as Income from House Property.

The assessee company, whose main object was to provide warehouse and supply chain solutions, rented out its owned building, and declared the rental income as Income from House Property. AO, based on ancillary objects, and also considering the main object, came to conclusion that since the primary source of income is the business of providing warehouse property on rent, and the business is not of simple letting out of property to derive rental income, rental income is to be taxed as Income from business. CIT(A) disagreed with the views of AO and taxed the income under the head Income from House property, on ground that assessee is into simple letting out premises on monthly rental without providing any amenities, which is not in the nature of systematic business activity.

On Appeal Tribunal, held that the CIT(A)’s direction to assess Income derived from letting out property under the head Income from house property is upheld.

(ITA No. 3324/Chny /2019 (AY.2014-15) dt 30.11.2021ACIT v. S N Damani Infra (P) Ltd (2022) 216 TTJ 252 (Chennai)(Trib.)

13. S. 28(i): Business income – Sales tax subsidy – West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999 – Capital Receipt – Not taxable.

The sales tax remission receipt by the assessee is covered by the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999. The Scheme can either defer the sales tax payment or provide remission of the Sales tax on the sale of finished goods. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Madras v. Ponni Sugar (306 ITR 392), noted that the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given determines the nature of the incentive subsidy, and the mechanism is irrelevant. In the present case, once the object of subsidy is to industrialize the state, it is capital receipt. (ITA Nos. 2439/ Mum/2011 dated 16-02-2022) (AY. 2003-04)

Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 402 (Trib.)(Mum)

14. S. 28(i) : Business Income vis- a-vis Income from undisclosed sources – unaccounted stock declared during survey proceedings by Assessee firm having only business of trading in cloth – Assessable under the head business Income and not u/s 69A – No Loss to revenue even if Remuneration and Interest paid to Partners from said excess stock disclosed as business income. (r.w.s. 69A)

Assessee firm engaged in business of trading of cloth, declared the unaccounted stock as business Income, based on certain incriminating material found during Survey. Assessee Firm claimed partner remuneration and interest as expense against said additional income. A.O treated the said Income as income u/s 69A. CIT(A) held that the disclosed income cannot be sustained as income u/s 69A, and further allowed the deduction u/s 40(b)(iv) of the act.

On Appeal, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is only engaged in the business of trading of cloth, unaccounted stock found is related to its business, and hence assessable as Business Income. It was further held that there is no loss to revenue, as the income of partnership firm and also the interest and remuneration paid to partners is subject to maximum marginal rate of income tax @ 30%, and hence the declaration of unaccounted stock found during survey is assessable as business income. (ITA No. 699/Srt/2018 (AY.2015-16) dt.27.01.2022

ACIT v. Mangaldeep (2022) 216 TTJ 102 (Surat)(Trib.)

15. S. 28(i) : Business Income – Claim of Loss arising due to forfeiture of earnest money was held allowable, on facts, as A.O has not made any enquiry or investigation nor controverted with any evidence.

Assessee engaged in the business of real estate, paid earnest money for purchase of plots of Land. Due to non-fulfillment of the terms of the contract and non-payment of balance consideration earnest money was forfeited which was claimed as Loss. AO disallowed the claim of Loss citing the deal as not bonafide.

On appeal the Tribunal allowed the Loss as A.O has not made any enquiry or investigation, nor examined anybody, and even no evidences were produced to controvert the submission of assessee to arrive at the conclusion that Loss is not allowable. There need not be conclusive proof that there was escapement of income while issuing notice u/s 148. The arbitrator had given finding of fact that the value of Land declined during that period, and assessee was not able to arrange the finances. Furthermore,

the genuineness of these agreements was not dispute by AO, nor any connivance with the parties for mutual benefit was proved.

(ITA No. 26/Kol/2021 (AY. 2013-14) dt 22.04.2021

ACIT v. K B Developers (2022) 216 TTJ 68 (Kol)(Trib.)

16. S. 32: Depreciation – Block of Asset – Asset Sold – Reduced from Block – Return asset – added to the asset block

The assessee sold cylinders to two entities that were returned during the relevant year. Before selling the cylinder, they formed part of the block of assets; consequently, on sales, they were reduced from the block of assets. On return, they would become part of the asset block. Hence, the assessee would be eligible for depreciation on the asset (cylinder) that will be added back to the asset block during the year under consideration. (ITA Nos. 2938 & 2939/ Chny/2017 dated 07-02-2022) (AY. 2011-12 & 2013-14)

Refex Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 633 (Trib.)(Chennai)

17. S. 32 : Depreciation – The Act does not contemplate that the assets have to be ‘used’ during the year in order to claim depreciation – it is sufficient that the assets are duly installed and kept in working condition before the end of the previous year.

The assessee entered into an agreement with Government of Odisha for rehabilitation, expansion, development and operation of Gopalpur Port on a build, own, operate, share and transfer basis for a period of 30 years. The Port was actually made operational from May, 2013. In the Return of income for AY

2012-13, Assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,25,06,766/-. AO observed that the assets were not put to use during the AY, therefore no depreciation was allowed. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is a going concern and expenses were incurred by it to keep the fixed assets ready for use. Relying on various decisions, it held that it is not necessary that the plant and machinery owned by the assessee should be actually put to use in to claim depreciation. It is sufficient that the business is not closed or efforts are made to keep the business going. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT (A) and confirmed the order passed. (105/CTK/2020 (C.O. No.01/ CTK/2021), Dt. 28.02.2022) (AY 2012-13).

ACIT v. Gopalpur Ports Ltd. (2022) 94 ITR 75(Trib.)(Cuttack)

18. S. 36(1)(iii) : interest – free loans to wholly – owned subsidiary company for furtherance of its business – commercial expediency

– Interest on borrowed capital allowed as deduction

The Assessee had forwarded interest-free loans to its wholly owned subsidiaries out of its borrowed funds. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and relied upon various judicial precedents on the issue to hold that since the loans were extended for the purpose of its business, interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. (CIT v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann. com 335 (Del) & CIT v. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., reported in 260 CTR 159) (ITA No. 5895/Del/2019, Dt. 22.09.2021)(AY 2016-17).

Moonrock Hospitality (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 185 (Trib.)(Delhi)

19. S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest paid by assessee partner to a Firm on debit balance, on account ofwithdrawal for tax payment – Held disallowance not justified as the end use of withdrawn funds from firm is immaterial. (r.w.s.153A)

Assessee had claimed deduction of Interest paid to firm on its excess borrowings from firm resulting into a debit balance. AO during assessment proceedings held that interest paid to firm is not allowable, as the amount withdrawn has been utilized for payment of advance tax and income tax which is the personal liability of the assessee. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

On Appeal, the Tribunal held that, disallowance of interest paid to firm on withdrawals from partnership firm, on ground that the said funds were withdrawn for payment of taxes which was personal liability of a partner cannot be sustained, for the reason that :

-Once a partner has withdrawn an amount from firm, the end use thereof is

-It is not within the purview of the IT authorities to determine and dictate as to how the funds so withdrawn are put to use by assessee/partner.

-The instant case is not of claiming an amount of tax on ITA Nos. 5 to 7/Chd/2021 (AY.2015-16 & 2017- 18) dt 28.12.2021

Late Ghansham Dass Through L/H Davinder Singh– DCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 214 (Chandigarh)(Trib.)

20. S. 36(1)(va) : Any sum received from employees – late deposit of Employee’s Contribution to ESI and PF – deposited before due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) – No disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) can be made – amendment by the way of Finance Act, 2021 wherein explanation is inserted to section 36(1)(va) shall apply prospectively w.e.f. from AY 2021-22.

There was a slight delay on the part of the Assessee to deposit the employees’ contribution towards ESI and PF from the due dates mentioned in the respective statutes; however, the same was deposited before the due date of filing return of income as per section 139 of the Act. Therefore, it was held that the Assessee was entitled to claim a deduction of the same u/s 36(1)(va). Reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the amendment via Finance Act, 2021 wherein an explanation to was introduced to sections 36(1)(va) & and 43B was dismissed on account of the consistent view of various benches of Tribunal that the amendment which has been brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply w.e.f. AY 2021-22 prospectively and the impugned AY being AY 2018-19, the said amendment cannot be applied in this case. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was directed to be deleted. (ITA No. 351/ Chd/2021 dt. 01.03.2022)(AY 2018-19)

Arjun Yadav v. Dy. CIT (2022) 94 ITR 74 (Trib.)(Chandigarh))

21. S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or Revenue expenditure

–Write off expenditure – Acquiring business

On failure to acquire a Singapore-based entity through its wholly-owned subsidiary, the assessee wrote off loss towards expenditure incurred to acquire the company. The assessee would have benefitted from the acquisitions, as there was a possibility of increased business and better trading results. Thereby, the assessee would run the business more smoothly and profitably. The Tribunal noted

that the investment was made to increase the business, and the investment was not to acquire manufacturing or infrastructural capacity but to boost assessee sales. Hence, the loss suffered by the assessee is rightly written off. (ITA Nos. 2938 & 2939/Chny/2017 dated 07-02-2022) (AY. 2011-12 & 2013-14)

Refex Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 633 (Trib.)(Chennai)

22. S. 37(1) : Business expenditure

–Prior Period expenses – Settlement on the rent in the year under consideration –

The assessee requested the landlord and the brand owners’ remission in rent due to the store’s poor performance. Pending negotiation with the landlord and the brand owners, the lease rent was not paid earlier, and the final settlement was reached during the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the lease rent agreement was modified, and the revised license fee has been mutually agreed upon and countersigned by both parties. During the assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed the amount as the expenditure belonged to the earlier year.

The Tribunal noted that what is relevant to determine is the crystallization of liability (when the amount has become due and payable). The AO has not questioned the commercial expediency and the nature of the business expenditure. The tax rates and deductions are the same for the prior and current year, creating a tax-neutral situation. It is clear from the facts that the payments were not made in the earlier year pending negotiations, and the payment was only made on the final settlement. Further, these expenses were booked in the accounts in the financial year and taxes are deducted and deposited in the financial year and not in the earlier assessment year. Therefore, liability crystallized during the year, and the same should be

allowed in the hands of the assessee (ITA Nos. 1023/Chd/2019 dated 20-01-2022) (AY. 2010-11)

Kamla Retail Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 483 (Trib.)(Chd)

23. S. 37(1): Business Expenditure – Adhoc disallowance on suspicion and conjectures, without rejecting the books of account not justified.

AO without rejecting the books, disallowed various expenses on percentage basis, on ground that personal element in such expenses cannot be ruled out. On appeal, the Tribunal held that, such disallowance is arbitrary in nature, and not sustainable. Disallowance can be made only if, expenses have no nexus to the business, or if any deficiencies is found in the vouchers, or there is no bill supporting the incurrence of an expenditure.(ITA No. 699/ Srt/2018 (AY.2015-16) dt 27.01.2022

ACIT v. Mangaldeep (2022) 216 TTJ 102 (Surat)(Trib.)

24. S. 37(1): Business expenditure

–Provisions made towards ‘periodic overlay expenses’ – Not Contingent liability – If the same can be determined with some reasonableness – Allowed

The assessee had made provision of ‘periodic overlay expenses’ towards the pavement of the toll road. As per its arrangement with NHDP, the assessee had to relay the surface every five years. Hence, the assessee claimed the expenses as an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability. The Assessing officer disallowed the provision while determining the income under the regular provisions, holding that the basis of estimation of such cost of overlay expenses is not scientific and is thus contingent liability.

The Tribunal noted that contingent liabilities are liabilities that may be incurred by an entity

depending on the outcome of an uncertain future event, such as a pending lawsuit. These liabilities are not recorded in the company’s accounts and are shown below the line in the balance sheet as a footnote. In the instant case, a provision has been made to cover expenses that will have to be incurred in future. If the amount towards the expenditure can be reasonable, as done by the assessee by submitting reports from a third party, it could not be claimed that the expenses cannot be ascertained. Therefore, we find that there is no dispute that such provision towards the cost of overlay expenses is related to the business activity of operating and maintaining the highway. Any Addition made towards such provision would enhance the taxable profit, which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and would thus be a revenue-neutral exercise. The CBDT in Circular No 37 of 2016 has stated that the appeal and ground were so taken should not be pressed/ withdrawn if the decision leads to a neutral tax issue. (ITA Nos.375/JP/2019, dated 22-12-2020) (AY. 2010-11)

GVK Jaipur Expressway (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 540 (Trib.)(Jp)

25. S. 40A(3) : Business Expenditure

–Cash Payments – Exceptions to rule unavoidable circumstances

– Payments in cash by assessee engaged in real estate business to agriculturists – Held disallowance not warranted as made out of business expediency.

r.w R 6DD(e)

Assessee made payments in cash to agriculturists for purchase of agricultural Land. During Assessment proceedings matter was investigated and report of Inspector after elaborate inquiry stated and confirmed, the identity of sellers and also the fact that agriculturist always insist on cash payments,

and it was inevitable and thus proved the business expediency in the matter. AO still went ahead and made the disallowance u/s 40A (3). In appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the part amount and sustained the addition for few transactions.

Tribunal held that following the co-ordinate bench decision in ITO v. Smt Jalumuri Rama Lakshmi (ITA No 242/Viz/2015 dt 28.07.2017), wherein the disallowance was deleted once the payments are proved to be genuine, and payees are identifiable, and recipients have admitted the receipts in the income, the disallowance sustained by CIT(A) is deleted. (ITA No. 148/ Viz/2020 (AY. 2012-13) dt 07.04.2021

Mohammed Ali Shaik v. ITO (2022) 216 TTJ 94(Visakhapatnam)(Trib.)

26. S. 41(1) : Business Income – Refund of Excise duty, subject to condition is liable to tax during the year of receipt.

Assessee Company received refund of excise duty in pursuance of SC order, subject to condition that assessee should furnish bank guarantee till the main appeals before the apex court are finally disposed of.

Tribunal held that the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee will not make any difference and refund of excised duty is liable to tax during the year under consideration. (ITA Nos. 2072/Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 (AY.2004-05 & 2005-2006) dt.30.12.2021

Frick India Ltd v. DCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 146 (Delhi)(Trib.)

27. S. 44BB: Mineral oils – Computation – Services Tax – Presumption tax – Not part for computation.

Service tax is not liable to be included in gross receipt in Section 44BB(1) r.w. Section 44BB(2) of the Act because the same is not part of the presumptive tax. (ITA Nos. 5638/Mum/2018 dated 09-12-2019) (AY. 2015-16)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Global Santafe Drilling Co. (2022) 216 TTJ 519 (Trib.)(Mum)

28. S. 45 : Capital Gain – Assessment Year: 2009-10 – Transfer of property in the preceding year – Sale deed registered and Stamp Duty paid – No income under the head “Capital Gain” offered for taxation – Reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 – Transaction of sale of property cancelled and amount of sale consideration received had been returned back to the purchaser

–Implication of the provisions of Section 17(1A) and 49 of Registration Act (as amended by Registration and Other related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001) and the amended provisions of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Held: Since transfer of property took place on execution of sale deed in the preceding year, the amount of Capital Gain cannot be charged to tax for the assessment year under

The assessee sold a house property for the consideration of Rs. 26,00,000/–. The sale deed was executed on 15–12–2007, but sale deed registered and stamp duty paid on 17–04–2008. However, no Capital Gain on it was offered for taxation. Resultantly, the AO initiated the reassessment proceedings by means of a

notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the said transaction of transfer of property was cancelled because of dishonor of cheques amounting to Rs.14,00,000/– and the part of the amount received earlier had been returned back to the purchaser and thus, no capital gain arose. The AO disbelieved and disregarded the explanation of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the assessment order. Being aggrieved by the orders of both the lower authorities, the assessee went to the Tribunal but could not succeed. Thereafter, the assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal raising the issue of the year of chargeability of tax on transfer of the property. The Tribunal recalled the original order passed u/s 254(1) of the Act for the limited purpose of dealing with the contention about the correct year of taxability. The Tribunal observed and concluded that in view of the amended provisions of Section 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act as amended by the Registration and Other related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and consequent made in Section 53A of Transfer of Properties Act r.w.s. 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer of the property in question took place in the year of execution of sale deed and not in the year of its registration. In the present case, the sale deed was executed on 15–12–2007 and accordingly, it has been held the year of chargeability of tax the AY 2008–09.

Beena Shammi Choudhari v. ITO (2022) 64 CCH 119 / 216 TTJ 888 (Pune)(Trib.)

29. S. 54 r.w.s. 54F: Long Term Capital Gain on sale of industrial plot of land with an office builtup area on Ground Floor and so-called residential built up area on First Floor – Property in question is an industrial plot clearly apparent from the

contents of the sale deed and valuation report – The AO denied the benefit of deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act, – The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT (Appeals), but could not succeed. – The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 54, but the benefit of deduction u/s 54F was to be allowed.

The issue under dispute is as to whether the

assessee has transferred a residential house or not. On careful reading of the contents of the sale deed executed by the assessee, it is discernible that the property in question is an industrial plot along with construction thereon. In support thereof, the valuation report submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also shows the locality of the property, usage and specification of the constructed area just prior to the execution of the conveyance deed. It is thus found and establish that the property in question was located in an industrial area with a covered area having the residential area on the first floor, not having all the necessary attributes of a residential house in terms of bedrooms and kitchen facility. Hence, the condition to avail the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of the Act has not been fulfilled and in consideration of the factual position of the case, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the assessment order.

Held that, the subject property is an industrial plot not a residential plot as clearly borne out from the contents of the sale deed as also from the valuation report, the benefit of deduction u/s 54 is not available. However, the assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act on fulfillment of the conditions thereof.

Chain Singh Mundra v. ITO (2022) 138 taxmann. com 105 / (2022) 216 TTJ 761 (Chd)(Trib.)

30. S. 54 : Capital Gains – Exemption

–Non-utilisation of amount lying in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme within 36 months – Justification for non utilisation beyond the control of assessee was held not

Assessee earned a Long Term capital gain on sell of property, and deposited the gain amount in capital gains account scheme. Out of 50L deposited, assessee invested partial amount of 35.90L, and balance 14.90L was unutilised. On expiry of 36 months the unutilised amount was not offered to tax. During the assessment proceedings assessee surrendered the unutilised amount lying in capital gains account scheme. During appeal before CIT(A) assessee submitted that he surrendered the income under some mistaken belief. CIT(A) did not accept the arguments and upheld the addition made by AO.

On Appeal, the Tribunal observed that, the argument advanced by the assessee that since the builder had delayed the project, and since builder defaulted in delivery the amount remained to be utilized was not accepted, on ground, that the assessee had made payments subsequently, but not utilized the capital gains amount lying in Capital gains account Scheme before the specified date. Based on non-utilization of amount and also on fact that assessee had surrendered the amount during assessment proceedings the exemption u/s 54 was held to be rightly disallowed. (ITA No. 9859/Del/2019 (AY.2012-13) dt.28.05.2021

Avtar Krishen Jalla v. ITO (2022) 216 TTJ 177(Delhi)(Trib.)

31. S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Land Appurtenant – Subsequent investment [S.54F]

The assessee sold a residential house along with the land appurtenant to the building. Further, the assessee computed long-term capital gain after considering the purchase of a new residential house under section 54F. The AO denied the exemption claimed as the sale deed for the residential house described the property as a plot.

The Tribunal noted that merely because the sale deed and agreement to sell the description of the property was mentioned as land, the same could not go against the assessee denying the benefit of deduction under section 54. The assessee has submitted a valuation report, property taxes and water taxes to substantiate that the sold property was, in fact, a building with land appurtenant. Hence, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of deduction under section 54 on the sale of the property, and the subsequent investment in the residential property will be exempt under section 54F. (ITA Nos. 1367 & 1794/Del/2020 dated 08-02-2022) (AY. 2017-18)

Charu Agarwal v. Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax (International Taxation) (2022) 216 TTJ 428 /137 taxmann.com 283 (Delhi – Trib.)[08-02-2022]

32. S.68 : Cash Credit – Genuineness of Share Capital and share premium – Acceptance as genuine based on documentary evidence proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investor, when circumstances indicate that the investor company is a shell company having no substance – matter referred to special bench

In the above case, the material facts were discernible from material on records. Further, in lieu of contrary approaches adopted by the co-ordinate benches, the matter was referred to larger bench for an authoritative decision to bring an end to such divergence of approach,

so as to constitute binding precedent for all the division benches.(ITA Nos. 1482,1484,148 5,1593,2340,2341,3040,3041,3115,3697,3698,403

9,40444058 & 4057/Mum /2019 and C.O Nos

43,44,109,111 & 112 (AY.2008-09 & 2010-11 to

2015-16) dt 25.02.2022

DCIT v. Lotus Logistics & Developers Ltd & Ors (2022) 216 TTJ 241 (Mumbai)(Trib.)

33. S. 80IA: Industrial undertakings

–Infrastructure development- Miscellaneous receipts from the sale of scrap – eligible for

The metal crash barriers, pedestrian guard rails, etc., got damaged due to road accidents and other regular wear and tear needed to be replaced. The assessee claims that the scrap has been generated in the regular course of business of operation and maintenance of the toll highway. Thus, a part of a normal business transaction is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. The AO has treated the income from the sale of scrap and insurance receipts received by the assessee as “income from other sources”. Consequently, it has not allowed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the deductions had been allowed in the earlier year, wherein it was held that the sale of scrap was generated in the ordinary course of business and it was not a case of independent purchase and sale of scrap items, and it is a case where such scrap items were generated from the same business on which deduction u/s 80IB is claimed. (ITA Nos.375/JP/2019, dated 22-12-2020) (AY. 2010- 11)

GVK Jaipur Expressway (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 540 (Trib.)(Jp)

34. S. 80IA: Industrial undertakings

–Infrastructure development

– Insurance claims – already capitalized – No deduction

The assessee claimed that the insurance receipts are towards a claim made in respect of assets used in the toll operation activity which got damaged, and such receipts are incidental to its activity of maintaining and operating the highway.

The Tribunal noted that the insurance claims regarding assets used in the toll operations were capitalized and form part of the block of assets. The receipts arising from insurance claims will reduce the block of assets instead of being eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. (ITA Nos.375/JP/2019, dated 22-12- 2020) (AY. 2010-11)

GVK Jaipur Expressway (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 540 (Trib.)(Jp)

35. S. 80IA: Industrial undertakings

–Infrastructure development- Insurance claims – already capitalized – no deduction

The assessee claimed that the insurance receipts are towards a claim made in respect of assets used in the toll operation activity which got damaged, and such receipts are incidental to its activity of maintaining and operating the highway.

The Tribunal noted that the insurance claims regarding assets used in the toll operations were capitalized and form part of the block of assets. The receipts arising from insurance claims will reduce the block of assets instead of being eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. (ITA Nos.375/JP/2019, dated 22-12-2020) (AY. 2010-11)

GVK Jaipur Expressway (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 540 (Trib.)(Jp)

36. S. 80IB: Industrial undertakings

–Fertilizer subsidy – income derived from the business

Fertilizers produced by the appellant are under the retention-pricing scheme, wherein the government decides the maximum retail price, and the difference between selling price less than the maximum retail price is paid to the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the difference was the cost recovered from the government, which is directly related to the sale of fertilizer to the farmers. It is a subsidy to the manufacturers to sell the fertilizers at or below the indicated maximum retail price to the farmers. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd (383 ITR 279), it noted that various types of subsidies received by the manufacturer are eligible for deduction under section 80IB. Hence, the Fertilizer subsidy received under the scheme will also be income derived from the business eligible claim section 80IB. (ITA Nos. 2439/Mum/2011 dated 16-02-2022) (AY. 2003-04)

Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 402 (Trib.)(Mum)

37. S. 80P : Co-operative societies

–letting of “godowns” or “warehouses” – CAP storage – Considered a

The Act does not provide any specific definition of “godown” and “warehouse”, nor is there a requirement for the structure to be permanent. The definitions in other laws observe that even a protected place or protected enclosure used for storing commodities is also a “warehouse”. Considering the definition, the Tribunal noted that the CAP storage might not be a permanent structure but included within the “warehouses” definition. Section 80P is a beneficial provision, and the purpose is to incentivize the warehousing activity of co-operative societies. Hence, the deduction exemption under section 80P is allowable (ITA Nos. 18/Ind/2019 dated 17-02-2022) (AY. 2013-14)

– P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.

– Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 493 (Trib.)(Ind)

38. S. 90 : Double taxation relief

–Fees for Technical Services – Engineering Services – Separate Contracts – No Make available cannot be invoked – Not taxable [Section 9]

The assessee is a non-resident who had entered into a sub-contract agreement with its associated enterprises, an Indian company, to provide engineering services for developing a vehicle safety system in India. For every new project/requirement in India, AE has to invariably sub-contract the relevant portion of the project to the assessee. The AO held that the money received is taxable as fees for technical services under section 9 of the Act and Article 12 of the India- US Tax treaty.

The Tribunal noted that the Memorandum of Understanding to India – USA DTAA explains the term ‘make available’ to mean that the service recipient is enabled to apply the technology. The technology will be considered available when the person acquiring such technical knowledge can use the technology in future without the service provider’s involvement on his own. If the services are consumed in the provision without leaving anything tangible with the payer for use in future, then it will not be characterized as ‘making available’ of the technical services. Where an assessee rendered engineering services to its AE without making available any technology, skill, or knowledge involved in carrying out such engineering services to enable its AE to use those services independently in future, the payment received for such engineering services could not be termed as

‘fee for technical services’. In addition, for every new project, the AE must enter into a contract with the assessee. There is no occasion to transfer or make available any technology, skill, knowledge, process, etc. (ITA Nos. 8126/ Del/2018 dated 21-02-2022) (AY. 2015-16)

Autoliv ASP Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)(2022) 216 TTJ 607/135 taxmann.com 263 /95 ITR(T) 270/194 ITD 253 (Delhi – Trib.)

39. S. 90: Double taxation relief – Royalty – payments towards third party Software – reimbursement

– not taxable

The assessee made payment of software charges to third-party vendors outside India for and on behalf of all of its group companies, including AE in India. The assessee allocated a certain amount towards charges recoverable from India and claimed the same as reimbursement of cost, without any profit element. Therefore, the same was not offered for tax in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated reimbursement of software charges as income from royalty under section 9(1)(vi) and article 12 of the India – USA DTAA, as the assessee had made payments for the software charges to the third-party vendors.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had stated any profit element embedded in the payments. The payments received by the assessee were mere reimbursement, and the assessee did not earn/make any profit on such reimbursements. Once the payment is found to be in the nature of reimbursement of the expenses, it cannot be income chargeable to tax. Further, the assessee has not been granted any right to use any copyright in the software. As the assessee has no right to use or use computer software, it cannot transfer or grant any rights to the Indian entity. Since the term ‘royalty’ has been defined in the DTAA, the

definition under the Act cannot be applied. The Reimbursement towards software charges will not qualify as royalty under section 9(1)

(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA. (ITA Nos. 8126/ Del/2018 dated 21-02-2022) (AY. 2015-16)

Autoliv ASP Inc. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) (2022) 216 TTJ 607/135 taxmann.com 263 /95 ITR(T) 270/194 ITD 253 (Delhi – Trib.)

40. S. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A: Income

from undisclosed sources – Unexplained expenditure – Seized agreement for purchase of land shows the purchase consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/– per acre, but in the sale deed, the consideration of Rs. 50,000/– per acre shown and accordingly, the return of income has been filed – The assessee claimed that high value has been shown in the agreement for the purpose of availing higher amount of loan from bank – The AO disagreed and made addition and the same, in turn, has been confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) – The records show that the adjacent land situated to the land in question was sold for the consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/– per acre by the same land owner to the assessee

– The assessee failed to give any convincing explanations – Addition confirmed by the ITAT Depreciation on Solar Plant – denied by the AO on the ground that the Solar Plant was not actually put to use – CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessee has generated solar power

and the income on sale of solar power has been offered for taxation by demonstrating in the Profit & Loss A/c – The date for put to use is the date on which power was produced and not when it supplied electricity to grid – Held: Depreciation on such solar plant cannot be denied – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

The assessee entered into an agreement to sale on 29–11–2012 for purchase of land at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/– per acre. However, the sale deed dtd. 17–01–2013 was made at the rate of Rs. 50,000/– per acre. On inquiry by the AO, the assessee explained that the higher amounts were mentioned in the seized agreement to sale only with a view to raise a higher bank finance. The same explanations were offered by the assessee even at the time of search. The assessee also furnished the instances of the land in the same vicinity showing the market value of Rs. 50,000/– per acre. The assessee also furnished an affidavit of the seller stating the real sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/– per acre and thus, explained that the seized sale agreement was not acted upon. The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee taking the view that the instances given by the assessee are not comparable. The AO further brought on records that the same vendors had sold out the adjacent land at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/– per acre. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT (Appeals), but could not succeed. Hence, the further appeal is before the Hon’ble ITAT.

The assessee further raised the issue of gross violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the AO has not furnished to the assessee the details of transaction of sale of adjacent land by the land owner to another party. However, the Hon’ble ITAT held that the adjacent land situated to the land in question sold by the vendors is for Rs. 5,00,000/– per acre which has not been disputed neither the assessee was unable to give any convincing reply to show how the vendor sold the adjacent land for Rs. 5,00,000/– per acre. In the result,

the ITAT confirmed the orders of the lower authorities on this issue.

On the issue of the claim of depreciation of the solar plant, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) by the Revenue, the ITAT observed that the assessee generated solar power and sold the same for Rs. 18,276/–, which has been offered for taxation, the assessee has also produced invoices for sale of power and thus, simultaneously proved the usage of solar plant. By relying the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Chamundeshwari Sugar Ltd., it has been held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on solar plant. In the result, the CIT (Appeals)’s order is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

ACIT v. Anr. vs. BG Channappa & Anr. (2022) 216 TTJ 0963 (Bang)(Trib)

41. S. 144B r.w.s. 143 and 144 :

Faceless Assessment – Duty of AO to observe the principles of natural justice and envisaged by the provisions u/s 144B – Variation, if any proposed in draft assessment order, an opportunity is to be provided to the assessee by serving a notice to show cause – The assessee or his representative has a right to request for personal hearing

– Reasonable time is to be given to make compliances and also personal hearing is to be allowed when requested – No personal hearing granted even though requested – Violation of Rule of “audi alteram partem”

–The assessment not made in accordance with procedure laid

down u/s 144B being nonest and held to be set aside.

The assessee Company was engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical formulations as well as trading in pharmaceutical goods. The regular return of income/revised return of income has been filed for the relevant year in the prescribed fixed format. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS, later on transferred to e-proceedings/faceless assessment. All the notices/SCNs were duly complied with by furnishing the requisite details / documents / accounts, etc. The assessee Company received a purported draft assessment order in the form of SCN stating certain proposed additions. The assessee Company sought for time to file its response to the issues raised in the draft assessment order and submitted a letter seeking hearing through video conference. The assessee Company received a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) making additions to income of the assessee Company.

Held:– The procedure to initiate and complete the assessment proceedings under the faceless assessment scheme has been laid down u/s 144B(1) of the Act. It is provided that the proceedings contained in clauses (i) to (xiii) to Section 144B(1) of the Act is required to be completed by NFAC and subsequent thereto, the Assessment Unit (AU) is supposed to make a draft assessment order, after taking into account all materials available on records. As provided under Clause (xvi) of Section 144B(1), NFAC may finalize the assessment in accordance with the draft assessment order if no variation prejudicial to interest of the assessee or in case variation prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, the opportunity to the assessee of being heard by serving a notice to show cause has to be given. Thus, procedure as contained in (xxiii) is to be followed in the cases where Draft Assessment Order or Final Draft Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. In the present case, in response to the Show Cause Notices, the assessee Company

has requested for personal hearing through written correspondences. However, the NFAC has not followed the provisions of Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act. The request for the personal hearing through video conference has also not been considered and thus, the Draft Assessment Order was passed patently in violation to the SOP for Assessment Unit under Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 is unsustainable, illegal, untenable and contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act and also resulted into infringement of assessee’s rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The assessment not made in accordance with the procedure laid down u/s 144B of the Act being non est, was to be set aside.

Piramal Enterprises Ltd. v. Addl./Joint/Deputy / ACIT / ITO (2021) 129 taxmann.com 18 /

(2021) 282 Taxman 407 (Bom)(HC)

42. S. 145 : Method of accounting

– Rejection of Profit – No allegation on Books of Accounts

– Similar profit margin in earlier years – Rejection not justified.

The AO found that the labour charged debited was very high, and hence the gross profit shown was low. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in a labour-intensive industry, and most payments were made through banking channels. The assessee has produced the books of account duly audited, muster roll, bills, and vouchers. However, the AO has failed to consider the same or specify any irregularity in the books of account or identify a single voucher which is not in order. Further, it failed to carry out any independent investigation on the bills and vouchers furnished by the assessee. The Revenue accepts the net profit from the same business in earlier years. Hence, the Revenue cannot increase the net profit of the assessee without specifying any cogent reason or bringing evidence of comparable instances of assessee’s engaged

in similar trade or business. (ITA Nos. 182/ RPR/2017 dated 16-02-2022) (AY. 2014-15)

Pooranchand Agarwal v. Deputy Commissioner of

Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 507 Trib.)(Rai)

43. S.147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – details of inter-unit transfer provided during assessment proceedings – Full and True Disclosure – No Tangible Material – Reopening invalid.

The assessee submitted the details for claiming deduction under section 10AA, and the AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3), recording the plant’s existence and considering the assessee company’s turnover along with the net profit ratio. Subsequently, notice under section 148 was issued beyond four years. The reasons restricted the deduction under 10AA in the proportion of material purchased from outside parties other than inter- unit transfer.

The Tribunal, while quashing the reopening, noted that the reopening is based on the information submitted during assessment proceedings. It was not the case that the inter- unit transfer of the goods and services did not correspond to the market rate. The AO must show failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. During the assessment proceedings, the AO obtained complete details and recorded the turnover and the net profit ratio in the assessment order. There was no failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts by the assessee, and the AO has no tangible material. Hence, the reassessment proceedings are invalid. (ITA Nos. 7213/MUM/2019 dated 11-01-2022) (AY. 2010-11)

Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 645 (Trib.)(Mum)

44. S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Depreciation claimed by the contractor – Not Owner – Failure to disclose – reopening is valid.

The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3). The AO noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation of 25 per cent on the bridge, which applies to Plant and Machinery. Since the bridge is not a plant, restricted the claim of depreciation on the bridge to 10 per cent, and the remaining 15 per cent was disallowed and brought to tax. Subsequently, beyond four years, the AO issued a notice under section 148, as the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed facts during the completion of the assessment under section 143(3). It held that the assessee is only a contractor and not the bridge’s owner; therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation at 25 per cent by treating the bridge as Plant and Machinery. The Assessing Officer treated the bridge as only a building and allowed depreciation at 10 per cent. However, the return filed by the assessee holding company had disclosed in the notes to accounts that the approach road, pathway and footpath to the bridge were damaged on account of floods. Consequently, the Karur Municipality cancelled the BOT agreement with the assessee, and the bridge was declared toll-free after a temporary repair. These facts show that the assessee was not the owner and was not available at the time of the original assessment. The information was gathered from the note filed by the assessee’s holding company. Therefore, there is an escapement of income to the extent of the depreciation claim made by the assessee as the bridge’s owner and allowed by the Assessing Officer at 10 per cent. (ITA Nos. 3107, 3108, 3109 & 3110/Chny/2018 dated 05-01-2022) (AY. 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06 & 2008-09)

East Coast Consultants & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 216 TTJ 623 (Trib.)(Chennai)

45. S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Share premium – Information obtained during subsequent year assessment proceedings – No tangible material – No reopening on suspicion.

During the assessment proceedings for 2012- 13, the Assessing Officer wanted to enquire about the share premium shown in the books of accounts. However, the assessee replied that no share premium was received during the assessment year under consideration, and the same was issued in the earlier assessment years 2009-10. Accordingly, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act that the share premium received by the assessee has escaped assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had no reliable information or tangible material to form the belief that the assessee’s income for the year under consideration has escaped assessment, as the same was bogus or was not genuine. Mere information given in the subsequent years for issuance of shares at a premium will not constitute any tangible material (information) and cannot be said to be a reason to form the belief that the assessee’s income has escaped assessment. In this case, the Assessing Officer has made a wild suspicion regarding the escapement of income without any information in his hand regarding escapement of income. The suspicion of the Assessing Officer was not based on any reliable information or tangible material coming to his possession in this respect. There is no dispute to the well-settled proposition of law that reason to believe must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction

of the assessing authority; such reason should be held in good faith and cannot merely be a pretense. (ITA Nos. 1257/Kol/2018 dated 01- 02-2022) (AY. 2009-10)

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2022) 216 TTJ 445 (Trib.)(Kol)

46. S. 148: Reassessment – Two Notice – Same Assessment Year – Second Notice Invalid – Reassessment Invalid.

The Assessing officer issued two notices under section 148, containing different reasons to believe, both of which were approved by the Commissioner on the same day. The first notice diverted the jurisdiction of the Assessing officer from initiating another reassessment proceeding. At the time of the second notice, the AO had already initiated the reassessment proceedings through the first notice. Once the reassessment proceedings are pending, the entire assessment is open and not confined to the reasons recorded by the AO for assuming jurisdiction. Instead, it should have issued both the reasons in the first reopening notice and not taken recourse to initiate piecemeal reassessment proceedings. As the AO is precluded from simultaneously embarking upon two sets of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the second notice and the reassessment proceedings based on it are quashed. (ITA Nos. 23/Asr/2018 dated 21-02-2022) (AY. 2009-10)

Kashmir Singh v. Income Tax Officer (2022) 216 TTJ 523 (Trib.)(Asr)

47. S. 149: Reassessment – Time Limit u/s 149 in respect of income in relation to any asset located outside India chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment

–Sec 149(1)(c) inserted e.f 01.07.2012 is expressly stated to be retrospective in nature.

AO’s stand that the time limit for reopening the assessment involving income escaping assessment in relation to any asset outside India is sixteen years from the end of the assessment year which is being sought to be reopened, was accepted by Tribunal, as against assessee’s contention, that such an extended time limit of sixteen years, as against the limit of six years prevailing as on 01.07.2012 i.e. when sec149(1)(c) came into force, will come into play only in respect of cases which could have been reopened on 01.07.2012. (ITA No. 966/Mum/2020 (AY.1999-2000) dt 16.02.2022

DCIT v. Dilip J Thakkar (2022) 216 TTJ 121 (Mumbai)(Trib.)

48. S. 151: Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – two separate notices – same assessment year – no application of mind

The Commissioner grants sanction/approval on two separate reassessment notices initiated by the AO on the same date and for the same assessment year, clearly revealing non- application of mind. Further, the subsequent notice fails to mention the earlier approval granted, leading to severe doubts on the application of mind by the Commissioner at the time of grant of approval to the impugned reasons to believe. (ITA Nos. 23/Asr/2018 dated 21-02-2022) (AY. 2009-10)

Kashmir Singh v. Income Tax Officer (2022) 216 TTJ 523 (Trib.)(Asr)

49. S. 151: Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – without application of mind

The sanctions granted by the CIT reveal that the Assessing Officer had mentioned the relevant section as ‘147(b)’, which has been omitted from the Statute w.e.f. 01.04.89. It shows that the CIT has not applied his mind to the contents and granted approval mechanically

by saying ‘Yes’. An approval granted without application of mind does not constitute a valid approval u/s 151 of the Act; hence, the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment by the Assessing Officer based on invalid approval was bad in law. (ITA Nos. 1257/Kol/2018 dated 01-02-2022) (AY. 2009-10)

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (2022) 216 TTJ 445 (Trib.)(Kol)

50. S. 153A & 153D : Search & Seizure – Order passed by AO without due approval from supervisory authority after issuance of notice u/s 142(1) as per mandate of Sec 153D was cancelled and not sustainable.

In the instant case approval u/s 153D granted prior to completion of the assessment proceedings was granted mechanically to meet the requirements of law, in spite of the fact that some defects and discrepancies were found in draft Assessment Order. The said draft order was passed with observations that the AO will pass the assessment order only after making verification, necessary inquiries and investigations in the light of suggestions made. The AO after issuing the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, immediately, after one day passed the assessment Order.

On Appeal, the Tribunal held that the final Assessment order passed, which is not in accordance with the law, and without due approval as per mandate of s 153D, is void and bad in law. IT(SS)A Nos. 67 & 68/Ctk/2019 (AY.2011-12 & 2012-13) dt 23.12.2021

Neelachal Carbo Metalicks (P) Ltd .v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 201(Cuttack)(Trib.)

51. S. 153A : Assessment – Search or requisition – addition made to the income of the assessee based

on the documents viz. ‘loose sheets’ and ‘scraps of paper’ seized during a search conducted on a third party – inadmissible evidence.

Additions were made to the income of the assessee on the basis of certain documents seized during search on the premises of a third party where the name of the Assessee was mentioned in such seized documents. The AR submitted that the documents bore no signature of the assessee and that the documents were not account of the assessee in the books of accounts of the third party but only some rough tabulation of notings, therefore such unauthentic ‘computerized prints have no evidence value and therefore the addition should be deleted. The department did not contradict that there is no copy of the account of the assessee in regular books of accounts of the third party. Therefore, the ITAT followed the decision of Common Cause and Others Vs. Union of India 394 ITR 220 wherein it has been held that ‘loose sheet’ and some other stray material could not be considered as admissible evidence against the third party. (ITA No. 2896/ Del/2017 dt. 10.01.2022)(AY 2012-13)

MGV Jain Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 94 ITR191 (Trib.)(Delhi)

52. S. 154 : Rectification of mistake

–within four years – barred by

CPC processed the return of income, and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act was issued on 05.03.2012. The AO passed a rectification order on 20.06.2016. The period for passing the rectification order was four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended. Under section 154(7), the time to pass the order had expired on 31.03.2016. The date of the original order is the commencing point of limitation, irrelevant to the subsequent rectification or subsequent

application. Hence, the order passed beyond 31.03.2015 is barred by limitation. (ITA Nos. 1028 & 1029/CHNY/2019 dated 24-01-2022) (AY. 2003-04)

– S. Jagdish v. Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax (2022) 216 TTJ 500 (Trib.)(Chennai)

53. S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay – No obligation on the receipt.

Since the assessee is not making the payments but is the receipt, they will not be any obligation to withhold any taxes under the Act. Hence, the order passed under section 201 of the Act against the assessee will be quashed. (ITA Nos. 5389, 5390. 6519, 6512, 6520

/Mum/2013 dated 06/02/2022) (AY. 2009-10 to 2012-13)

Income Tax Officer v. Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. (2022) 216 TTJ 513 (Trib.)(Mum)

54. S. 250 r.w.s. 143(3): Ex parte order passed by the CIT (Appeals) without granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee Company and the huge additions and disallowances made by the AO has been confirmed – Genuine, real, actual and reasonable cause for non-appearance before the CIT (Appeals) – Not appreciated by the CIT (Appeals) – Case of pure violation of rule of “audi alteram partem” – Matter remitted to the AO for de novo assessment

The assessee Company engaged in the business

of film production and entertainment software. The case of the assessee Company was selected for scrutiny, but due to stringent financial position arising out of the complete flop of first

film and resultantly, shut down of the office of the Company, no compliance were made to the notice during the assessment proceedings. As a result, the AO passed the ex parte assessment order making disallowance of Rs.1.62 Crores out of film production cost and some other business expenses as also making addition of Rs. 13.56 Crores for the unexplained cash credits. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). However, nobody appeared in response to the notice of hearing neither made any compliances because of the genuine, actual and reasonable cause preventing the assessee Company to make response in the appeal proceedings before the CIT (Appeals). It was explained that the assessee Company was facing the criminal cases against the Company and its Directors, culminated in prison time for the key person behind the Company. Held – The Hon’ble ITAT considered the explanations of the assessee Company demonstrating the genuine, actual and real cause which prevented the assessee Company from appearing before the FAA and for such reasonable and sufficient cause, mere nonappearance before the FAA and the AO could not be put against the assessee Company to pass ex parte assessment order. To meet the ends of justice, the matter is remanded to the file of the AO to make de novo assessment, with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee Company to produce the requisitioned information and explanations and make it’s submission. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd. v.ACIT (2022) 136 taxmann.com 280 / 194 ITD 431/ 216 TTJ 853 (Mum) (Trib.)

55. S. 251(1)(a) : Powers of CIT(A) – No jurisdiction to enhance the income in exercise of powers vested u/s 251(1)(a) qua the new issue which was not considered

by AO during the course of Assessment.

On Appeal the Tribunal held that the of dividend stripping u/s 94(7) was never considered by AO in course of assessment, CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to enhance the income qua the said issue.(ITA Nos. 2072/ Del/2008 & 330/Del/2012 (AY.2004-05 & 2005- 2006) dt.30.12.2021

Frick India Ltd .v. DCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 146(Delhi)(Trib.)

56. S. 253: Appellate Tribunal – Appeal – Covid Lockdown – Delay condone

The appeal was filed delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s outburst and the state’s lockdown. Since such delay was beyond the control of the assessee, the same is condoned. (ITA Nos. 49/JP/2021 dated 02-11-2021) (AY. 2003-04)

Gear Training & Research Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (2022) 216 TTJ 456/134 taxmann.com 89/192 ITD 655 (Jaipur – Trib.)

57. S. 253 : Appeal – Additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of CIT(A), held to be legal ground and admitted for adjudication on merits. (r.w.r 11 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963)

Grounds of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of CIT(A) to pass the order without providing opportunity to revenue, and challenging the findings of CIT(A) in passing the order are held to be legal grounds which can be raised for the first time during the course of appeal before tribunal for adjudication on merits. (ITA No. 1065/Jp/2019 (AY.2013-14) dt 14.07.2021

DCIT v. Smt Pallavi Mishra (2022) 216 TTJ 185(Jaipur)(Trib.)

58. S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue

–AO failure to verify the genuineness of the lenders – completed details not submitted by the assessee- revision

The assessee was operating from Aurangabad and had accepted huge loans from certain parties, mainly from Kolkata and Mumbai. While passing the reassessment order under section 148 r.w.s 143(3), the AO mentioned that certain notices under section 133(6) had been issued to the lenders, and a few confirmations have been received. The Commissioner issued a notice under section 263, as the AO failed to verify their capacity and human probability regarding how the Kolkata-based parties came to be known to the assessee and advancing loans.

The Tribunal upheld the revision made by the Commissioner, as there was an utter failure on the part of the AO: first, not all replies were received, and still, the AO proceeded to frame the assessment accepting the lenders as genuine. Second, most of the parties had the same address that had not filed any confirmation during the Assessment proceedings. Further, on the confirmation received by some parties through the assessee, the AO did not consider it worthwhile to cause further enquiry even though massive amounts were transacted. Third, no prior business transaction with any of the parties. Ongoing through the different sets of creditors, it emerges that the assessee allegedly received huge money running into several crores as loans from the parties based mainly in Kolkata and Mumbai, whereas it was operating from Aurangabad. Neither such companies were engaged in financing business, nor did the assessee have any prior business dealings with them. As the AO has not entirely verified the details of the lenders, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying the exercise of revisionary

power by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. (ITA Nos. 49/JP/2021 dated 02-11- 2021) (AY. 2003-04)

Ajanta Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 216 TTJ 466 (Trib.)(Pune)

59. S. 263 : Revision – Assessee Trust registered u/s 12AA(1)(b) of the Act – Return of income filed declaring Nil income – Processed u/s 143(1) of the Act

–Subsequently the case has been reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground of verification of Indian and Foreign Currency seized – Order passed u/s 143(3)

r.w.s. 147 of the Act accepting the returned income, after in depth scrutiny and verification of the records for the relevant year – The CIT (E) set aside the assessment order assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and directed the AO to pass assessment order afresh after taking into consideration of all the issues pointed out in the order u/s 263 of the Act – Held: The CIT (E) has not pointed out as to how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue – The assessment order has been passed making inquiry by the AO and hence, could not be held an erroneous – Further the case of the assessee was opened on formation of belief that Income and Foreign Currency seized have

escaped assessment, whereas The CIT (E) has revised the assessment order on grounds other than grounds of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act – The order u/s 263 passed by CIT (E) is contrary to the evidences on record and hence, held without jurisdiction and bad in law.

The assessee is the Trust registered u/s 12AA(1)(b) of the Act, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring Nil income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. On the basis of the information of Indian and Foreign Currency seized in January 2011, the AO initiated the reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The AO conducted the inquiry and in appreciation of the explanation with the corroborative evidences placed on the records, the AO completed the assessment and accepted the return filed for Nil income. Subsequently, the CIT (E) exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT (E) has not pointed out as to how the assessment order is an erroneous one, that there is no force in the allegation of the CIT (E) that the assessment order has been passed without making an inquiry on the issue involved in the present case. The Tribunal further observed that in Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the CIT (E) has to be satisfied of twin conditions namely, that the order sought to be revised is an erroneous and that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed

by the AO. It is observed that this is not the case of absence of any inquiry neither the case of inadequate inquiry by the AO. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the detailed explanations with relevant material with reference to the donation received were given and there is no case of any anonymous donations. Moreover, the assessment order was passed in the year 2013, whereas the CIT

(E) issued notice u/s 263 of the Act 11–03–2016 and thus, the action of the CIT (E) is bad in law.

The Hon’ble Tribunal held the order of the CIT

(E) contrary to the evidence on record and also not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal allowed and the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT (E) is set aside.

Karmae Garchen Trust v. Jt. CIT (2021) 92 ITR 365/ (2022) 216 TTJ 0897 (Chd)(Trib.)

60. S. 263 r.w.s. 72 and 73 :

Assessment Order u/s 143(3) passed by the AO treated as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the Pr. CIT – Claim of set off of “non speculative business loss” against the profit of speculated business – Revision Order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is quashed

Delay of 219 days occurred due to COVID–19 pandemic – Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 read with Misc. Applications which suo motu extension of the limitation period for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under all laws has been granted

The assessee earned the profit of Rs.13,08,856/– from day trading of shares under the head

“Profit of Speculative Business”. Also, the assessee was having brought forward business loss of the earlier years under the head “Non Speculative Business Loss”. In the return of income filed, the assessee claimed set off of brought forward non speculative business loss against the profit of speculative business to the extent of Rs.13,08,856/–. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO verified the claim of the assessee for set off of brought forward non speculative business loss against the profit of speculative business of the relevant year and accepted in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

The Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act by issuing SCN treating the assessment order as an erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr.CIT set aside the assessments order with a direction to the learned AO to redo the assessment. The assessee challenged the order u/s 263 passed by the Pr. CIT raising the substantial ground in the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Hon’ble Tribunal observed the provisions of Section 28, 72 and 73 of the Act and held that the assessee was justified in claiming set off of brought forward non speculative business loss against the profit of speculative business and the assessment order passed by the AO is neither suffering from any error nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, the order u/s 263 passed by the Pr. CIT is quashed.

Puli Ashok Reddy v. Pr. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 977 / 212 DTR 249 (Hyd)(Trib.)

61. S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee would not attract levy of penalty – wrong claim with respect to Long term Capital Loss and not a false one.

The Assessee had claimed a Long Term Capital Loss on the gift of property to his son. On being confronted by the AO, the Assessee admitted it being a typographical error on the part of Chartered Account and accepted the addition made to his income. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed. The Tribunal observed that the amount of capital loss was duly mentioned in the computation of income, therefore there was no concealment of income on part of the Assessee. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim of Long Term Capital Loss was an incorrect or wrong claim but not a false claim since there was no concealment of income by Assessee. Reliance placed upon CIT v. Reliance Petro Products ltd reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) & Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd v. CIT reported in (2012). (ITA No. 1475/CHD/2018 Dt. 17.01.2012) (AY 2014-15)

Pawan Garg v. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax (2022) 94 ITR 159 (Trib.)(Chd)

62. S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – concealment – Non-striking off of relevant limb – lack of recording proper satisfaction by AO whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee – non application of mind by AO – held notice is invalid.

The AO issued a notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording satisfaction as to whether the Assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and had not struck off the non-applicable limb in the standard print format of notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 (1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Held, it is a settled law that while levying penalty for concealment, the AO has to record satisfaction and

thereafter come to a finding in respect of one of the limbs which is specified u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, namely, whether the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particular of income. No such specific finding was given by the AO in the present case, which shows non application of mind by the AO, thus vitiating imposition of penalty. (CIT

–Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 SC, PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del), CIT v. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar)) (ITA.4991/Del/2011, Dt. 28/02/2022) (A.Y. 2006-07)

Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 63 (Trib.)(Delhi)