TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing the loss claimed by the assessee on account of sale of shares of M/s. Doogar & Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Doogar'); and (ii) Addition of Rs.9,13,081 on account of expenses debited to Profit and Loss account under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for brevity). 2. Insofar as first addition is concerned, the assessee had shown in Profit & Loss account the decrease/increase in stock of shares Rs.2,02,19,778. It was explained by the assessee before the AO that opening share stocks of Doogar was 20,35,000 and purchased the same @ Rs.10 per share and the same was sold @ Rs. 2.23 per share on 30.03.2002. The assessee filed a copy of HDFC bank's depository services statement to support the sale of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transferred to the assessee's head. The Assessing Officer sought explanation for such debit to the assessee. The assessee furnished the comparative expenses with previous year and also stated that these expenses were incurred by the other group concern, viz., M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the assessee in connection with the generation and promotion of ICD and share business of the assessee. The assessee was also asked to explain as to why PPF and ESI bonus, etc. were not deducted/paid to the employees. According to the AO, the assessee did not submit any explanation or produced salary register and other ledger accounts. For this, the Assessing Officer concluded that no employee was on the pay role of the assessee company and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrative work to a sister concern and reimbursing the said concern with the expended amount. Since the employees were in the pay rolls of the service provider, the liability to pay PF and other dues rests squarely on the provider, viz., M/s Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, the AO was not right in disallowing the expenses on extraneous ground that the assessee had not produced employees register or had not shown that the TDS was not deducted. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissed the appeal of the Revenue preferred against the order of the CIT (A). This is how the Revenue is in appeal before us under Section 260A of the Act. 7. Insofar as the issue relating to the extent of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disputed that this additional evidence was crucial to the disposal of the appeal and had a direct bearing on the quantum of claim made by the assessee. Plea of the assessee which was taken before the AO remains the same. The AO had taken adverse note because of non-production of certain documents to support the plea and it was in these circumstances, the additional evidence was submitted before the CIT (A). It cannot be said not is it the case of the Revenue that additional evidence is not permissible at all before the first appellate authority. On the contrary, Rule 46A of the Act permits the CIT (A) to admit additional evidence if he finds that the same is crucial for disposal of the appeal. In the facts of this case, therefore, we are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings Co. (in ITA No.675 of 2010), held that where the shares sold are identifiable, there is no question of averaging the cost. In computing the capital gains/loss on sale of such identifiable shares, the cost of acquisition of such shares has to be taken into account, instead of average cost of acquisition. 11. Therefore, no question of law arises in this regard as well. 12. Coming to the second issue relating to allowing the expenses of Rs. 9,40,782 debited by the assessee to the Profit and Loss Account incurred by M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt. Ltd., again we find that the finding of fact is recorded that the work was outsourced to the sister concern and the expenses for undertaking that the work was allocated, in proportionate to the ....