Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Special Bench of ITAT rules on 16 Important Tax issues
March, 29th 2008

Special Bench of ITAT rules on 16 Important Tax issues

Vide a significant ruling AIT-2008-98-ITAT Special Bench of ITAT has decided the following 16 Questions referred to it.

(1)   That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.38,64,109/debited to year's revenue account as value of stores written off by holding that it is for the A.O. to prove that consumable stores had either not been used or individually costed less than Rs.5,000/ignoring, in the process, the findings in assessment that claim could not be established on record.
(2)   That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon 'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of building, furniture, fixture & fittings thereby contravening enunciation by the jurisdictional High Court to the defect that prohibition against guest house expenses stipulated in section 37(4) is absolute.
(3)   That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon 'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of traveling expenses disregarding the specific finding that assessee could not discharge the statutory onus of providing that the entire amount debited as expenses represented revenue expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of business.
(4)   That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.67,59,104/without requiring the expenses to controvert the finding that the amount represented outgoings in the form of entertainment expenses.
(5)   That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,45,48,3311- under the sub-head of payments to clubs disregarding the finding that no part of the expenditure could be shown to have any direct and intelligible nexus with business of the company as such.
(6)   That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.13,30,000/claimed as advertisement expenses when clearly the expenditure in question did not qualify to be treated as admissible revenue expenses of the company's business.
(7)   That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of 'Repairs' when the order of assessment showed that material evidence to establish the claim had been omitted to be made available for A.D. 's scrutiny.
(8)   That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.1,77,05,366/- basing his analysis on method of accounting thereby ignoring the fact that the provision represented purely contingent expenditure.
(9)   That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.55,00,000/- by ascertaining capital or revenue nature of the expenses solely with reference to composition of the amount rather than the purpose each component of the expenditure was expected to serve.
(10) That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in summarily deleting addition u/s. 43B read with section 36(1) (Va) without appreciating that the statutory disallowance is essentially to be based on facts and that unlike the governmental liabilities of other nature covered by section 43B, option to claim deduction in the year of payment is not available under the law in regard to contribution to employees' provident & pension funds.
(11) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition disallowances of Rs.2.5 crores under the head other staff welfare business by holding that the although the assessee could not furnish details of such expenses before the assessing officer in course of assessment in deleting addition of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of expenditure on fuel soft coke for staff and mill workers by holding the same as in nature of employees welfare expenses incurred on the basis of an agreement with workers in gross disregard to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as the assessee did not disclose the fact of the agreement with workers in course of assessment procedure & in deleting addition of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of school fees scholarship and educational tour expenses by holding that the expenditure were incidental to assessee's business.
(12) That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of miscellaneous expenses ignoring the trite law that a decision in regard to a different year can not be taken as an authority on facts.
(13) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition by holding that the onus of proof is, not on the assessee, but on the A.O.
(14) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition applicable without appreciating that arm's length principle had been clearly shown to have been violated.
(15) Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in directing adoption of total turnover net of excise duty for purposes of computation of admissible amount of deduction u/s. 80HHC which directly contradicts the law.
(16) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. top allow deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per computation made by the assessee's auditor without pointing out any defect in the computation made by assessing officer.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

"SPECIAL" BENCH: KOLKATA

(Before Shri G.D. Agarwal,V.P.(KZ), Shri. D.K. Tyagi, J. M. & Sri Jugal Kishore, A.M.)

I.T.A. No. 1541/Cal/ 2000

Assessment Year: 1997-1998

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-16, Kolkata.
 -vs.-
 M/s. I.T.C. Ltd.,

Kolkata.


Appellant by : Shri B.D. Kaler, Smt. Pallavi Agarwal and Shri Raja Ram Shah..

Respondent by: Shri R.N. Bajoria and Shri Rahul Mitra

Special Bench considered the following questions :-

(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.38,64,109/debited to year's revenue account as value of stores written off by holding that it is for the A.O. to prove that consumable stores had either not been used or individually costed less than Rs.5,000/ignoring, in the process, the findings in assessment that claim could not be established on record.

(2) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon 'ble CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of building, furniture, fixture & fittings thereby contravening enunciation by the jurisdictional High Court to the defect that prohibition against guest house expenses stipulated in section 37(4) is absolute.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions