TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai ['CIT(A)'], your appellant submits the following grounds of appeal for your sympathetic consideration: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 4,42,01,504/- made under section 145A on account of Excise Modvat on closing stock of Raw Material and spares. He further erred in not appreciating the fact that where section 145A of the Act is invoked, corresponding effect should be given to the opening stock, purchase and sales made during the year and net result of these adjustment on the profit of the year would be Nil. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer (' AO') to adopt value of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egarding the review of order by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed deduction of Mr. Prakash Kulkarni Rs. 18,40,868 being excess managerial remuneration of allowed by the MCA. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in excluding a sum of Rs. 6,97,806 while granting deduction under section 80IC of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, if necessary." 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 3. Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of Ride Control Products and Bearings. During the year under consideration AO made addition u/s. 145A which was confirmed by the CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue involved is what is the fair market value of the plot of land admeasuring 7438.10 aq.mtr should be considered for the purpose of Section 50C. 7. We have considered rival contentions and found from record that there is no dispute on the year of taxability by the assessee as well as the tax department. So far as invocation of Section 50C is concerned, the AO was correct in invoking the same. Since Stamp Duty value was more than fair market value, the AO referred the matter to the DVO. Fair market value - per the DVO's report dated 27.12.2012 - as on 06.05 2008 was INR 13,26,03,000/- and as on 31.03.2009 was INR 14,23,23,000/-. 8. Assessee give limited power of attorney in August 2007 to Runwal Developers to represe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sale: (i) Removal of machines from factory. (ii) Factory Closure Certificate from Govt of Maharashtra. (iii) NOC from Labour Commissioner, Govt of Maharashtra. (iv) Settlement with Sitaram Dharam Bond and Others - (Writ Petition No. 5416 of2004 filed by Gabriel before Bombay High Court.) (v) Balance part of the consideration i.e. INR 10 crores was payable by Runwals on satisfactory and timely compliance of conditions stipulated in the term sheet. 12. It is clear from the term sheet that it was the assessee's responsibility to pass on the clear title of the property to Runwal Developers. Since Runwal Developers had been given general power of attorney to represent matter in the Court, it had settled th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....313 ITR 340, if assessee is having sufficient own funds, no disallowance of interest is warranted. We also found that against the exempt income of Rs. 1.66 lakhs the assessee suo-moto worked out the disallowance as per Rule 8D at INR 49,66,962 as against the disallowance of INR 62,87,173 worked out by the AO. Accordingly, we direct the AO to restrict disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 49,66,962/-. 15. Next grievance of assessee relates to disallowance of Rs. 1,54,15,493/- under section 37(1) being excess payment of managerial remuneration. 16. We have considered rival contentions and found that excess remuneration so paid was approved by the shareholders in their General Meeting held on 28th July, 2009. The shareholder also approved applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is still awaited. Total remuneration paid during the year also included the Management Incentive Bonus Plan and long Term Management Incentive Bonus Plan for earlier year(s) as per the Company policy uniformly followed by the Assessee over the years. During the year under consideration, Assessee was impacted by the down turn in auto industry with reduced margins and increased finance costs. However, assessee company could still achieve increase in terms of volume mainly on account of various cost saving and other measures taken by these top executives of the company and as such assessee company deemed it appropriate to reciprocate them with the similar bonus as paid in the earlier years which was always well within limits prescribed by the....