TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee, against which, the AR of the assessee furnished the required information. 2.1 The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28/03/2013 revising the total loss of Rs. 2,06,23,441/- as against the loss declared by the assessee at Rs. 5,89,41,575/-, by making following disallowances: 1. Disallowance of excess claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Rs. 1,40,14,670 2. Disallowance of long term capital loss - Rs. 24,76,342 3. Disallowance u/s 14A - Rs. 12,83,188 4. Disallowance of bad debts - Rs. 1,87,97,676 5. Disallowance of wealth tax expense - Rs. 1,98,328 6. On account of sale of depreciable assets - Rs. 15,47,930 3. When the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the order of CIT(A), both the assessee and revenue are in appeal before the ITAT. 5. First we take up the case of the assessee. Assessee has raised 4 grounds of appeal, out of which Ground Nos. 1 & 4 are general in nature, hence, need no adjudication. Ground No. 2 is against the action of CIT(A) in sustaining the disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9/03/2010 and also that entire sale consideration of Rs. 1.50 crores was also paid to the assessee company. 6.3 The ld. DR, on the other hand, besides relying on the orders of revenue authorities submitted that no sale deed has been produced by the assessee before the authorities that the transfer of the property had indeed taken place in the year under consideration from any authorities i.e. SRO. The assessee has not satisfied the conditions as per the definition of "transfer" as contemplated in section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 6.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. Even before us, the assessee failed to submit the sale deed, if any, issued by the authority to establish that the property had been transferred in the year under consideration. Mere considerations received and possession handed over without any documentary evidence for enjoyment of the property to the buyer is not sufficient, hence, the section 2(47)(vi) is also not applicable. As per the documents available, we find that the transaction was done in the financial year 2009-10 and till the date of hearing, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....movable property (for the purpose of Section 53A of 1882 Act) is registered, it shall not have any effect in law, other than being received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. Section 17(1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 Act, as amended, read thus: "17(1A). The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53A." "49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been stated above, there is no contract in the eye of law in force under Section 53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case, and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered, since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no "transfer" can be said to have taken place under the aforesaid document. Since we are deciding this case on this legal ground, it is unnecessary for us to go into the other questions decided by the High Court, namely, whether under the JDA possession was or was not taken; whether only a licence was granted to develop the property; and whether the developers were or were not ready and willing to carry out their part of the bargain. Since we are of the view that sub-clause (v) of Section 2(47) of the Act is not attracted on the facts of this case, we need not go into any other factual question." 6.5 Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the AO's action in disallowing the assessee's claim of long term capital loss of Rs. 24,76,342/-. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. However, it is clear from the order of AO that the assessee can offer incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t income and that during the year no activity of sale or purchase was done in respect of shares. He relied on the decisions in the case of Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 27 Taxmann.com (Delhi Trib.) and the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of GodreJ & boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 194 Taxman 203. 7.5 The ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 7.6 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. We do not accept the contention of the assessee that no administrative/ managerial expenses incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. Assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 3,46,312/- which is exempt u/s 10(34)/10(35) of the Act. The investment relevant to earning of exempt income is as under: S.No. Investment As at 31-03-2009 As at 31-03-2010 Increase during the year Dividend earned 1. Corporation Bank 9,76,000 9,76,000 Nil 97,600 2 Bank of Baroda 7,61,300 7,61,300 Nil 29,790 3 LIC Liquid Fund - Dividend plan 34,56,782 36,75,704 2,18,922 2,18,922 Total dividend 3,46,312 7.7 The findings given by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the assessee, observed that it is now well settled law that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt had in fact become bad to be written off as bad debt in view of the amendment made to section 36(1)(vii) from 01/04/1989 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF (supra). He, therefore, held that the action of the AO in allowing debts of more than three years only as bad debts is erroneous and, thus, directed the AO to allow the entire bad debts written off as allowable. 10.3 The ld. DR relied on the order of AO while the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and case law cited before him. 10.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. On going through the financial statements, in the P&L account bad debts/advances/deposits written off of Rs. 4,28,33,731/-, which includes 90,01,443/-, which is the disputed amount. The ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed this issue after relying on the judgement cited supra. In view of the above observations, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) in directing the AO to allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem for a number of years. This is evident from the details of such deposits/advances written off as filed by the AR. This issue has been subject matter of Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case 0; DOT vs Friends Shoes Company wherein it was held that the write off of advances/deposits are allowable as deduction u/s.37 of the Act. Since the facts of the appellant are similar to the above mentioned case law, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted and the grounds of appeal is allowed." 11.3 The ld. DR relied on the order of AO while the ld. AR besides relying on the order of CIT(A) reiterated the submissions made before him. 11.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. We observe that the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 97,96,233/- made by the AO on account of deposits/advances written off by the assessee, because these advances/deposits relate to various parties and no correspondence between the assessee and the parties has taken place. On going through the pages 23 & 24 of paper book, in which, list of deposits/advances written off during the year 20....