Show Posts - pawansingla

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pawansingla

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
Discussion / Re: MERILYN SHIPPING SINKS IN KOLKATA
« on: May 09, 2013, 10:41:25 PM »
Thanx a lot. A wrong judgement has been finally corrected by two high courts.Lets us wait for the final erdict from the Apex Court.Till , such time , all asseessee again in trouble.

2
Discussion / Re: MERILYN SHIPPING SINKS IN KOLKATA
« on: May 08, 2013, 12:10:45 PM »
Kindly provide the ita no or the name of the case.
Pawan Singla
singlapavan@gmail.com

3
Discussion / Re: CA gets VIP treatment in jail
« on: May 08, 2013, 12:04:00 PM »
In india evrthing is possible. you should have the right connections with people in power.Everthing and anything can be managed.

4
This is known as trail by media. The assessee has right of appeal. If we go by the detection figure by released CBDT(including searches, surveys, assessments) and what actually remians after the first appeal/second appeal , wewill come to know that hardly 2-3% is actuall conformed. Rest of the additions are deleted. But no one reports the news when these additions are deleted which are based on surmises, presumptions and innvoations.Media has to be fair in reporting.

5
Discussion / Re: Initial Assessment Year??
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:32:50 AM »
[(iv) in the case of an undertaking engaged 65[in the business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables or] in the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of foodgrains, means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins such business;]

I think , if go by the wording , AO is correct. That deduction has been introduced subsequent tp commencement of business, will not make undertaing elgible for deduction as first year. The stress is on such business. if earlier you were doing another business, but now you have started this busineess , then in that case , the year in which youb started this business will be first year of deduction.

AO is right.

6
Discussion / Re: judgement needed for deemed dividend
« on: March 29, 2013, 08:01:17 PM »
But all subsequent judgements are deicded on same ratio even after this judgment of apex court.

7
Discussion / judgement needed for deemed dividend
« on: March 23, 2013, 03:36:29 PM »
I neee a judgement in favour of revenue ,where it has been held that out of accumulated profits, income tax depreciation need not be deducted.there are judgement in favour of assessee where it has been held that income tax depreciation has to be deducted.

8
Discussion / Re: Kolkata Tribunal also lifts embargo on Merilyn Shipping
« on: February 26, 2013, 09:35:35 PM »
There is nothing mentioned in this order that the suspension of Merlyn shipping was brought to the notice of Members. Further ,Sh.Mahavir Singh was one of the member in the special bench.

9
IT : Surrendered income during course of survey has to be assessed separately as deemed income without setting off losses under sections 70 and 71
■■■
[2013] 29 taxmann.com 268 (Chandigarh - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH 'A'
Liberty Plywood (P.) Ltd.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ambala*
T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 727 (CHD.) OF 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06]
DECEMBER 17, 2012
Section 70, read with section 71, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Losses - Set off of, from one source against income from another sources under same head of income - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether income surrendered during course of survey has to be assessed separately as deemed income and set-off of losses under sections 70 and 71 is not possible against such income - Held, yes [Paras 11 & 12] [In favour of revenue]
Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Unabsorbed depreciation - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether in view of amendment brought out in section 32(2) with effect from 1-4-1997 by Finance Act (No.2) of 1996 and again on 1-4-2002 by Finance Act, 2001 unabsorbed depreciation for block of assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 which could not have been set off earlier, cannot be allowed to be set off in subsequent assessment year - Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of assessee]
FACTS



Facts
• During the course of survey assessee surrendered an additional income of Rs.70 lakhs.
• Assessment was completed by Deputy Commissioner.
• Later on assessment records were examined by the Commissioner wherein he found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner passed an order under section 263 and opined that surrendered income of Rs. 70 lakhs should be treated as deemed income under section 69, 69A, 69B and therefore, same was not eligible to be set off against carry forward business loss or depreciation in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290/[2002] 120 Taxman 11.
• Though the order under section 263 was challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal observed that the assessment order was definitely erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, however, the Commissioner himself was not correct in observing that surrendered income should be treated as deemed income under section 69, 69A, 69B. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that such a conclusion can be drawn only after necessary enquiry and accordingly, the matter was sent to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting enquiries.
• The Assessing Officer held that since income surrendered during survey was not recorded in the books of account therefore, no deduction of set off of loss on depreciation could be allowed. Accordingly, the surrendered income was assessed separately.
• On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
Arguments of assessee
• The assessee submitted that the income surrendered during survey could not be assessed as deemed income under sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C if nature of source could be properly identified.
• The assessee further argued that as per section 32(2) if unabsorbed depreciation could not be set off in a year under consideration then the same would be added to the depreciation allowance of the following previous year which means it would become current depreciation of the next year. Such depreciation could be adjusted or set off against any head of the income.
Argument of revenue
• Revenue however, relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 106 of 2011 (O&M)] wherein the Court held that in case of surrendered income brought forward losses cannot be set off under sections 70 and 71 against the surrendered income.
Issue for consideration
• Whether the surrendered income should be treated as business income so as to set off brought forward losses under section 70 as well as the depreciation under section 32(2)?
HELD



Surrendered income during course of survey has to be assessed separately
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. (supra), clearly held that surrendered income can be taxed as deemed income without setting off of the losses under sections 70 and 71. Following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court it is held that surrendered income has to be assessed separately as deemed income and set off of losses under sections 70 and 71 is not possible against such income. [Paras 11 & 12]
Issue relating to setting off of depreciation under section 32(2)
• The plain reading of section 32(2) clearly shows that if the depreciation cannot be fully adjusted against profits and gains chargeable in the relevant year because of inefficiency of the profits then the same would be added to the depreciation of the following year. This means that unabsorbed depreciation which cannot be set off in a particular year, would become current depreciation in the following year and there is no restriction against such set off. Therefore, unabsorbed depreciation which is carry forward as current depreciation under section 32(2) is clearly available for setting off. [Para 12]
• However, this provision has been amended twice with effect from 1-4-1997 by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 1996 and again on 1-4-2002 by the Finance Act, 2001. [Para 13]
• Keeping in view the said amendment it is held that unabsorbed depreciation for the block of assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 which could not have been set off earlier, cannot be allowed to be set off in subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to only allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is outside the block of assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02. [Para 14]

10
Discussion / Re: Interest on Late depsoit of TDS
« on: November 08, 2012, 10:21:22 PM »
I think i earlier posted a direct judgement of some high court which was against the assessee. Either kerala or Karnataka.

11
Discussion / Re: Deduction u/s. 80-IA on carbon credit income
« on: November 08, 2012, 10:19:50 PM »
Same as sales tax subsidy held to be capital receipt by Mumbai special bench and upheld by Bombay High court and SLP dismissed by Apex court.

12
Discussion / Re: SECTION 2(22)(E)
« on: November 08, 2012, 10:15:54 PM »
Normal business transaction are not to be regarded as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). Delhi High court and Bombay High court have upheld this view.

13
Discussion / Re: income recognition
« on: October 16, 2012, 12:31:22 PM »
IT : Interest on bad debts - Interest on bad and doubtful debts kept in reserve account would be eligible for deduction under section 43D

■■■

[2012] 25 taxmann.com 572 (Mumbai - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'L'

American Express Bank Ltd.

v.

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Spl. Range-32, Mumbai*

R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 5374 (MUM.) OF 2001
INT. T.A. NO. 97 (MUM.) OF 2001
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99]
AUGUST 10, 2012
Section 43D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Public Financial institution/public companies - Assessment year 1998-99 - Whether mere crediting of interest to a reserve cannot be said to be an incidence by which said interest could be charged to tax - Held, yes - Whether where interest on loans granted by assessee-bank remained unpaid which were classified as non-accrual loans and were reversed to an account called Reserve for Doubtful Interest account, assessee would be entitled to claim deduction under section 43D in respect of said interest and simply on ground that interest had been credited on such type of debts in reserve account, deduction could not be taken away - Held, yes [Para 15] [In favour of assessee]

Section 5 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 read with section 43D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Chargeable interest - Assessment year 1998-99 - Whether interest on non-performing assets would be charged to interest-tax only in year in which said interest is credited to profit and loss account or in year of receipt, whichever is earlier - Held, yes [Para 17] [In favour of assessee]


14
Discussion / Re: TAX IMPLICATION
« on: October 01, 2012, 09:12:12 PM »
Figures has to be seen from the angle of P & L a/c and not as per the normal tax calculation.It is business loss as per books or books depreciation whichever is lower.Kindly mail your p& l a/c for last 2,3 years on singlapavan@gmail.com or call me on 9825829075. I will further clarrify the matter.
2009] 27 SOT 152 (MUM.)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘A’

Amline Textiles (P.) Ltd.*

v.

Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(1)-1, Mumbai
read this.ou will get more clarity and also the benfit.

15
Discussion / Re: deduction of 80-IC in the year of part IX conversion
« on: October 01, 2012, 09:06:02 PM »
As you have to file two returns ,you have to claim deductions in two returns.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13