TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 624
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai [AO] u/s 144 on 26/12/2006. The assessee is in second round of appeal before us. The matter, in the first round of appeal before this Tribunal vide ITA No. 4147/M/1995 dated 25/10/1995, was restored back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo adjudication. 2.2 The assessee has raised the following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,71,339/- in respect of premises at Worli and Bandra held by the appellant. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses amounting to Rs. 2,67,473/- in respect of premises at Bandra, Mumbai held by the appellant. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating that the income assessed in the hand of the appellant were subjected to the provisions of TDS and hence on the said amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. The assessee also contested imposition of interest u/s 234A/B/C on the premises that it was notified entity and therefore, the same could not be applied to the assessee. However, finding that interest provisions were mandatory in nature in view the judgment of Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Anjum H.Ghaswala, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR], reiterating the contentions drew our attention to the documents placed in the paper book and contended that the assessee company carried out Board Meeting at the said premises and therefore, depreciation and repair expenses against the same were admissible. Per Contra, Ld. DR contended that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim in this regard in any manner and the premises in dispute was always being used for residential purposes only by the directors of the assessee company. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. First of all, it is noted that the depreciation claimed by the assessee as per Income Tax Act against the said premises was Rs. 2,15,156/- whereas Ld. AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.18.06.2014) and Eminent Holdings Pvt.Ltd.(ITA/2139/Mum/2013,AY.2002-03,dated 18.06.2014), that the Tribunal had upheld the levy of interest in principal, that it had set aside the issue for calculating the interest to the file of the AO with direction that the tax deducted as source should be reduced while calculating the interest. We find that the issue was discussed in the case of Eminent Holdings Pvt.Ltd (supra) as under: "3.Next ground of appeal is about levy of interest u/s. 234 of the Act. Before us, AR stated that the assessee was a notified entity, that the provisions of s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act were deemed to have complied with, that the assets were already in attachment of the Custodian appointed under the provisions of the Special Courts Act, that the Tribunal in the case of the appellant and several other entities had held the view in favour of the appellant, that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had held that the provisions of sections 234A,234B and 234C of the Act were mandatory and were applicable to the notified entities also, that the assessee was in the process of filing an app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT-CC-31/121 & 114/2009-10 dated 05/11/2014 which is a common order against quantum assessment order dated 20/03/2003 passed u/s 144 read with Section 147 and quantum assessment order dated 26/12/2006 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 The registry has noted that the appeal is time barred by one day and the assessee, vide affidavit dated 26/02/2015, explaining the reasons has requested for the condonation of the same. We find that the delay has occurred mainly due to obtaining appeal fees from the custodian. No serious objections against the same are raised by the revenue. Therefore, while condoning the delay, we proceed to dispose-off the same on merits. 9. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are related with disallowance of depreciation and repair expenses against premises situated at Worli & Bandra. The assessee, on similar lines as in AY 1991-92, has suffered disallowance of depreciation for Rs. 2,78,309/- & Rs. 13,821/- respectively against premises situated at Madhuli, Worli and Bandra. Here also, we find that no cogent documentary evidences could be produced by the assessee to substantiate the depreciation claim against any of the property and therefore, taking the same stand, we d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollows:- 86. Thus, there is a uniformity of opinion on this issue in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court as well as the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal, as also in CBDT's circular No. 334 dated 3/4/1982. Accordingly, it is held that no interest u/s 220(2) can be charged based on the original demand notice, if a fresh assessment is made pursuant to the directions of the appellate authority. Even in the present case, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the assessment made on 31/1/1995 was set aside and a fresh assessment order was made on 26/12/2006. Further, my learned predecessor has also allowed appeal in case of Hitesh Mehta for A.Y.1992-93, vide order dated 30/12/2011, and other persons of the same group, through separate orders. Since the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT V. M/s Chika Overseas P.Ltd. (supra), the AO id directed not to charge interest u/s. 220(2) from the date of original assessment. However, as mentioned above, in this case, the assessment was reopened and the reassessment was completed vide order u/s.143(3) read with Section 147 dated 20/03/2003, which has not been set aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the same constituted approx. 51% of total receipts of the assessee and hence called for disallowance u/s 14A. As against this, the assessee claimed expenditure of Rs. 15.36 Lacs. After making various adjustments in the expenditure, Ld. AO computed the said disallowance at Rs. 6,07,261/- being approx. 51% of balance expenditure of Rs. 11,90,708/-. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the factual matrix, restricted the same to 1/12th of total expenditure of Rs. 11,90,708/- which came to Rs. 90,225/-. The Ld. AR pleaded that the tax free income was earned only during short span of time and the impugned disallowance against the same was on the higher side whereas Ld. DR contended that the factual matrix has duly been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the same was fair and reasonable. 13. After due consideration of the same, we find that Ld. AO has already adjusted the total expenses claimed by the assessee for various disallowances already made and arrived at the impugned disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the span during which the related transactions were carried out, computed the same at 1/12th, which was quite fair and reasonable and do not require our inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le-31, Mumbai [AO] u/s 144 on 26/12/2006. The only grievance of the revenue pertains to deletion of addition of Rs. 30 Lacs on account of suppression of Sale price of 7500 Shares of ACC Limited. 18.2 The relevant facts qua the same are discussed in Para-4 of the quantum assessment order. During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee earned Share Trading Income of Rs. 10,75,114/- on certain delivery based Share transactions which were routed through the broking concern namely Ashwin S.Mehta, a proprietary concern of one of the director of the assessee company. There was no actual movement of fund and the transactions were entered through journal entries by way of debit and credit, the net result of which was profit of Rs. 10,75,114/- to the assessee and the same was reflected in the Profit & Loss Account. 18.3 After reviewing the audit report of three Chartered Accountant Firms appointed by the special court, certain discrepancies were noted in sale / purchase rates of a stock namely ACC Limited reflected by the assessee vis-à-vis rates quoted by the stock exchange on trading days. Resultantly, the Ld. AO, by taking the average rates of a particular day ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respective parties after the gap of more than 15 years was not possible. Per contra, Ld. AR placed reliance on the stand of Ld. CIT(A) and contended that the transactions were duly confirmed by the broker firm and backed by supporting evidences and therefore, the additions were rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). 18.6 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and peruse relevant material on record. The only dispute is with respect to sale price of 7500 shares of ACC sold by the assessee. The allegation of the Ld. AO is that the shares were sold on 14/09/2009 at prices much below than prevailing market prices whereas the contention of the assessee is that the sale transactions was carried out through broker firm and the same took place much before 30/08/1990 and the reflected prices are duly supported by the documents and the confirmation of the broker firm. The assessee has placed certain documents pertaining to the transactions at page numbers 27 to 60 of the paper book which contain clearing statement, assessee's transactions details carried through broker firm, ledger extracts and contract notes. A perusal of stock exchange clearing document placed at page no.27,....