TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... long term capital gain be assessed by applying the provision of section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and according the long term capital gain offer to tax by appellant be accepted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in disallowing Rs. 3,07,600/- without considering the explanation I information submitted during the course of proceeding. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in disallowing amortization of expenditure on amalgamation/de-merger claimed under section 35DD of Rs. 17,17,462/- The appellant submit that the claim made were duly certified by the tax auditor ,the disallowance were made without any justification and therefore it is prayed that the addition be deleted. 5. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in disallowing cost of employee of Rs. 7,48,459/- by estimating 50 percent of employee cost were incurred for business service centre . Since the income from business service centre were assessed as income from house property the disallowance were made on estimat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclaring total income at Rs. 27,11,46,846/- along with audited report. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 05.04.2006. Thereafter, this case was selected for scrutiny and after serving the statutory notice and giving the opportunity to assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 18.12.2007 and assessed the income under various heads by making the following disallowance: (i) "Income from House Property", after deducting the expenses and disallowing the depreciation of Rs. 25,30,432/- out of total income from House Property of Rs. 1,77,53,280/-. (ii) Disallowed Rs. 60,542/- as prior period expenditure. (iii) Interest expenditure of Rs. 1,58,470/- @ 1% of total exempt income of Rs. 1,58,46,982/- u/s.14A. (iv) Capital Gain of Rs. 73,99,578/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). 3. Thereafter, the CIT by exercising the power u/s 263 of the Act, revise/reopen the assessment order passed by the AO/ACIT dated 28.12.2007 by declaring it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. The CIT while revising concluded that AO in its order had computed long term profit from sale of sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessable under the head "Business Income" and thus the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The show-cause notice dated 23.10.2009, with the reasons of re-opening/revising the assessment was served upon the assessee. 5. After the above stated observation, the CIT revised the order of AO and modified finding of AO to the extent that LTCG are assessable at Rs. 43,88,94,291/- computed without indexation as against the assessed figure of Rs. 42,38,37,098/- and directed the AO to re-compute the tax @ 10%. The CIT disallowed Rs. 3,07,600/- on account of depreciation, Rs. 17,17,462/- on account of expenditure on amalgamation/demerger, Rs. 7,48,558/- on account of employee's cost incurred from business service centre, Rs. 1,80,745/- on account of legal expenses, Rs. 3,36,882/- on account of common expenses for business service centre, Rs. 32,91,128/- u/s 24 of the Act and Rs. 36,33,874/- by treating business income instead of STCG. However, in respect of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D the proceeding was dropped, against which the present appeal is filed before us. 6. We have heard AR of the assessee and DR for Revenue and perused the material available o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was calculated to Rs. 42,25,28,155/- and total sales (-) total cost and after excluding STCG of Rs. 36,33,874/- the balance LTCG without indexation calculated to Rs. 43,88,94,281/- which was calculated by assessee at Rs. 41,64,37,520/- and calculated the tax which was not figured notice by AO after making adjustment the LTCG without indexation at Rs. 42,38,37,098/- while correct figure was calculated as Rs. 43,88,94,281/- and LTCG having been assessed by AO of Rs. 1,50,57,183/- was held erroneous and directed the assessee to modify the LTCG at Rs. 43,88,94,281/- instead of indexation figure of Rs. 42,38,37,098/-. The AR of the assessee has relied upon the judgment reported vide (2008) 26 SOT 380 titled as Mohanlal N. Shah vs. ACIT, (2006)151 taxman 17 (Del.) title as Devinder Prakash Kalra vs. ACIT (2010) 190 taxman 330 (Bom) titled as CIT vs. Anuj A. Shah and (2012) 19 taxmann.com 359(Mum) titled as DCIT vs. Savla Motor Agencies (P.) Ltd., in Mohanlal N. Shah vs. ACIT the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai while relying the judgment of Devinder Prakash Kalra has held that section 112 is not only a beneficial provision but is also mandatory and if several transaction have taken pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticular and find that CIT ignored the relevant point in the computation before coming to the premature calculation that the order of AO iserroneous, thus this ground is allowed in favour of assessee. 14. Fourth ground for our consideration is the disallowance made by CIT of Rs. 17,17,462/- on account of amalgamation/demerger claimed u/s 35DD, the CIT while making the addition has observed that assessee claimed amalgamation/demerger expenses of Rs. 37,61,835/- and the same was not considered to be correct as expenses of Rs. 17,17,462/- has been claimed back out of disallowance, hence there was a difference of similar amount which was disallowed by the CIT. The AR of the assessee has drawn our attention the page no. 28 of Paper Book which is P&L Account of the assessee wherein amalgamation/demerger charges of Rs. 37,61,835/- is shown. The CIT has not given any reason as to how the same is not found to be correct or in which manner the expenses of Rs. 17,17,462/- has been claimed back, hence, we do not find that order of AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 15. Fifth to Eighth grounds for our consideration are the additions of employees cost of Rs. 7,48,45....