News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs. Sahara Care Ltd, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow
 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Vs. Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Anr.
 Shri Subhash Rastogi, Raj Kumar & Associates,CAs L-7A(LGF), South Extn. Part -2, New Delhi. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward -19(3), New Delhi.a
 Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura extension, New Delhi. vs. DCIT, Central circle-7 New Delhi
 AT & T Global Network Services (India) Private Limited Mohan Dev House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 New Delhi
 Mohd. Ismile H.No. 729, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Ghaziabad, Uttar Prades. vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Ghaziabad.
 ACIT, Central Circle-22, New Delhi, Vs. M/sSatnam International P. Ltd., 201, Vipps Centre, 2, Community Complex, Masjid Moth, G.K. II, New Delhi
 American Express (I) P. Ltd., Metropolitan Saket, 7th floor, Office Block, District Centre, New Delhi. Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi.
 Satish Kumar Gautam 302, Triveni Complex, E-10/12, Jawahar Park, Luxmi Nagar, Delhi. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Noida.
 The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (1) New Delhi Vs. AASl (India) Properties In Infrastructure Private Limited 4 A/10, Old Rajinder Nagar New Delhi
 M/s Rita Plastics Pvt. Ltd., A-53, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi-110027 Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward 15(4), New Delhi.

Shri Ajit H. Shah, 92, Pushpak, 31, Altamount Road, Mumbai - 400026 Vs. ITO 11(2)(1) Mumbai
June, 26th 2014
                        MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI


                                  ITA No.1911/M/2011
                                Assessment Year: 2006-07

           Shri Ajit H. Shah,                      ITO 11(2)(1)
           92, Pushpak, 31,                        Mumbai
           Altamount Road,
           Mumbai - 400026
           PAN: AABPS9509D
                (Appellant)                          (Respondent)

      Assessee by                   : Shri Madhur Agrawal, A.R.
      Revenue by                    : Shri B. Yadagiri, D.R.

      Date of Hearing               : 23.06.2014
      Date of Pronouncement         : 23.06.2014


Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

      The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order
of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as
CIT(A)] dated 21.12.10 relevant to assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has
taken the following grounds of appeal:

      "1.     The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the rates at
              which the compensation has been paid to the owners are below
              the market rates & the A.O. has not compared the prevailing
              market rates with the rates paid by the appellant. Therefore the
              addition of Rs.50,000/- is uncalled for.

      2.      The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts properly &
              has erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. &
              enhancing the addition on account of sale of Rishi Leasing shares.
                                        2                  ITA No.1911/M/2011
                                                           Shri Ajit H. Shah

      3.     The learned CIT(A) has failed to reconcile the details of
             speculation submitted before it & without appreciating the facts
             confirmed the addition made by the A.O."

Ground No.1
2.    Vide ground No.1, the assessee has contested the disallowance of
Rs.50,000/- paid on account of compensation for the use of premises from
where the assessee is running a sonography centre admeasuring 300 sq. ft. The
assessee claimed that the said expenditure was paid in accordance with the
agreement with the owners of the premises who happened to be the relatives of
the assessee. The compensation as per agreement was paid at the rate of 35%
of the total receipts of the assessee less electricity charges. The Assessing
Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that the compensation paid at
the rate of 35% of the receipts which came out at Rs.4,76,420/- was on higher
side. He therefore disallowed Rs.50,000/- out of the said expenditure under
section 40A(2)(b) being excessive payment paid to the relatives.
      The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition made by the AO. The
assessee is thus in appeal before us.

3.    We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties and have also
gone through the records. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the
AO has not made any exercise to ascertain the market rental rates of the
property similar to that of assessee. There was no comparable before the AO
to hold that the compensation paid on account of rent was excessive. The
assessee had not been paying a fixed rate of compensation but it was only on
the basis of certain percentage of his total receipts. In our view, without
holding that what should have been the reasonable rent/compensation for the
property, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.50,000/- out of
compensation on adhoc basis and in the absence of any evidence on the file
                                       3                     ITA No.1911/M/2011
                                                             Shri Ajit H. Shah

that the compensation paid by the assessee was excessive, is not sustainable.
Accordingly, the same is ordered to be deleted.

Ground No.2
4.    Vide ground No.2, the assessee has agitated the confirmation of the
addition made by the AO and further enhancement of the same by the ld.
CIT(A) on account of sale of "Rishi Laser Shares". The AO observed that the
transaction relating to the sale of 200 shares of "Rishi Laser" for a sum of
Rs.21,768/- was not recorded by the assessee in his statement of capital gains.
He therefore added the said amount into the total income of the assessee under
the head "short term capital gains".
      In first appeal, it was contended by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A)
that though the assessee had sold 200 shares on 31.01.06, however the assessee
had only 100 shares with him. Therefore he had to purchase 200 shares on
03.02.06 through `Kantilal Chaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd.'
      The ld. CIT(A) however observed that the assessee could not establish
conclusively that he had purchased the shares for selling/delivering the same as
agreed vide agreement dated 31.01.06. He observed that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the sale of total number of 300 shares by the
assessee was doubtful especially when the availability or purchase of any share
was not established through evidence. He therefore held that not only the
capital gains on account of sale of 300 shares of "Rishi Laser" but also the
entire receipts there from were liable to be taxed, as the investment in the said
shares had not been identified. He therefore directed the AO to calculate the
tax liability accordingly.

5.    Before us the ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that though the
assessee had agreed to sell the 200 shares but the assessee had only 100 shares
with him. He therefore purchased from the market another 200 shares which
                                              4                  ITA No.1911/M/2011
                                                                 Shri Ajit H. Shah

were sold as per the contract note dated 31.01.06. In our view, the entire
matter needs reconsideration at the hands of the AO. We therefore restore this
issue to the file of the AO with a direction that the assessee will demonstrate
through plausible evidence before the AO regarding the above said sale and
purchase of the shares. Thereafter the AO will decide the same after proper
appreciation of evidence in accordance with the law.

Ground No.3
6.       The ld. A.R. of the assessee has made a statement at bar that he does not
press the ground No.3. The same is accordingly dismissed being not pressed.

7.       In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical
                  Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2014.

          Sd/-                                                   Sd/-
  (D. Karunakara Rao)                                       (Sanjay Garg)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 23.06.2014.
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: The Appellant
        The Respondent
        The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
        The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai
        The DR "C" Bench
//True Copy//                             [

                                                  By Order

                                 Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - About Us

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