Category: Tribunal News: Part A-Domestic Taxation

7. [2020] 114 taxmann.com 508 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

Mohammadanif Sultanali Pradhan vs. DCIT

ITA No. 1797/Ahd/2018

A.Y.: 2015-16

Date of order: 6^th January, 2020

Section 54F – Even after amendment w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16,
investment of long-term capital gain in two bungalows located adjacent to each
other and used as one residential unit qualifies for exemption u/s 54F –
Benefit of exemption could not have been denied on reasoning that there were
two different registries of buildings / properties as both properties purchased
by assessee were a single property located in same geographical area

FACTS

During the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16, the
assessee in his return of income declared income under the head capital gain at
Rs. 23,84,101 after claiming exemption u/s 54F for Rs. 1,08,00,000. In support
of the exemption claimed, the assessee contended that he has made investment in
two bungalows which are adjacent to each other, bearing Nos. 18 and 19 located
at survey No. 606/2, TPS No. 92, Sarkhej – Makarba – Okaf – Fatewadi of Mouje
Sarkhej, taluka Vejalpur, district Ahmedabad.

The A.O. was of the view that the assessee can claim
exemption u/s 54F with respect to the investment in one bungalow only.
Accordingly, he computed the exemption with respect to one bungalow only
amounting to Rs. 43,77,118 and thus disallowed the excess claim u/s 54F of Rs.
64,22,882.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) and
submitted that both the bungalows are in the same society, adjacent to each
other. As such both the bungalows are one unit for residential purposes.
Therefore, he claimed that he is entitled to deduction / exemption for both the
bungalows u/s 54F.

The CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground
that there is an amendment under the provisions of section 54F of the Act where
the expression previously used, ‘a residential house’, has been substituted
with ‘one residential house’. Such amendment is effective with effect from A.Y.
2015-16, i.e., the year under consideration.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal observed that:

(i) the
issue relates to whether the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the
Act against the long-term capital gain for the investment made in the two
properties which are adjacent to each other and used as one residential unit.
It noted that indeed, the provision of the law requires that the exemption will
be available to the assessee u/s 54F for the investment in one residential
unit;

(ii) under
the provisions of section 54F, there is no definition / clarification provided
about the area of the residential property. It means that one assessee can buy
a huge bungalow / property of, say, one thousand square metres and can claim
the deduction subject to conditions. Similarly, another assessee acquired two
different residential properties adjacent to each other but both the properties
put together were only two hundred square metres – but he will be extended the
benefit of the exemption with respect to one unit only because there are two
different properties based on registry documents;

(iii) there can be a situation that the family of the assessee is quite
large, comprising of several members, and therefore he needs two properties
adjacent to each other to accommodate them. So from the point of view of the
assessee it is a single property but he got two different properties registered
as per the requirement of the builder;

(iv) the
assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit conferred under the statute merely
on the reasoning that there were two different registries of the buildings /
properties;

(v) it
is also not a case of the Revenue / assessee that both the properties purchased
by the assessee were located in different geographical areas. In such a
situation the law amended u/s 54F appears to be applicable where the assessee
buys two properties in two different areas;

(vi) the
principles laid down by the courts cannot be just brushed aside on the aspect
of defining one residential unit. It noted the observations of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. D. Ananda Basappa [(2009) 309
ITR 329].

The Tribunal held that the assessee
is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F in respect of investment made in two
adjacent bungalows used as one residential unit. The Tribunal deleted the
addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A).

shailesh.kwebmaker

8. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 378 (Pune)(Trib.)

Uday Gopal Bhaskarwar vs. ACIT

ITA No. 502/Pune/2019

A.Y.: 2014-15

Date of order: 20^th January, 2020

Section 64 – Entire loss arising to wife of assessee in the
business of Futures and Options (F&O) which business was started by her
during the previous year with contribution from assessee in shape of gifts, was
liable to be clubbed in hands of assessee in terms of Explanation 3 read in
conjunction with section 64(1)(iv) – Assessee was entitled to club full loss
from business of F&O in his personal income

FACTS

The assessee, in the return of
income filed by him, clubbed the loss from the business of his spouse amounting
to Rs. 31,56,429 in view of the provisions of section 64. In the course of
assessment proceedings, on being called upon to justify such a claim, the
assessee submitted that during the year under consideration he gifted a sum of
Rs. 94.50 lakhs to Mrs. Priti Bhaskarwar, his wife, who started a business of
Futures and Options (F&O) on 18^th September, 2013. The assessee
claimed that she incurred a loss of Rs. 31,56,429 in the business which was
clubbed in his hands.

The A.O. accepted the primary claim
of the assessee of his wife having incurred a loss of Rs. 31.56 lakhs in the
business of F&O, which was set up on 18th September, 2013, and further that
the loss from such business was eligible for set-off against the income of the
assessee in terms of section 64(1)(iv) read with Explanation 3 thereto. He,
however, did not accept the assessee’s contention that the entire loss of Rs.
31.56 lakhs be set off against his (the assessee’s) income. Considering the
mandate of Explanation 3 to section 64(1), the A.O. held that only that part of
the business loss incurred by the assessee’s wife could be set off against the
assessee’s income which bears the proportion of amount of investment out of the
gift on the first day of the previous year to the total investment in the
business as on the first day of the previous year.

He, therefore, computed the amount
of loss eligible for set-off against the assessee’s income at Rs. 9,72,563 by
multiplying Rs. 31,56,429 (loss incurred by wife in the business) with Rs.
25.00 lakhs (gifts made by the assessee to his wife up to 18^th
September, 2013) as divided by Rs. 81,13,648 (opening capital as on 1^st April,
2013 as increased by the gift of Rs. 25.00 lakhs given by the assessee up to 18^th
September, 2013).

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an
appeal to the CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO.

Still aggrieved, the assessee
preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal noted that the core of
controversy is the computation of eligible amount of loss incurred by the
assessee’s wife which is eligible for set-off against the assessee’s income.

On going through the mandate of
section 64(1)(vi) of the Act in juxtaposition with Explanation 3 to the
sub-section, it transpires that there can be two possible situations of
utilisation of the assets transferred by husband to wife triggering the
clubbing provision. The first situation can be where the amount of assets
received by the wife is exclusively invested in an asset and further there is
no investment by the wife in such a new asset. The full income resulting from
such an exclusive investment is liable to be clubbed with the total income of
the husband. An example of such a situation can be a wife making a fixed
deposit with a bank, etc. out of the gift of money received from her husband.
The full amount of interest income arising on such FDR is liable to be clubbed
with the income of the husband.

The second situation can be where
the amount of assets received by the wife as a gift from her husband is not the
exclusive investment in the business carried on by her. Rather, she has also
made separate investment in the said business. In such a situation of a common
pool of unidentifiable investments in the business, there arises difficulty in
precisely attributing the income of such a business to the investments made out
of the gift received from the husband attracting clubbing and to investments
made out of funds other than the gift received from the husband not attracting
the clubbing provision. It is in such a scenario that the prescription of
Explanation 3 comes into play by providing that the amount of income from the
combined business as relatable to the assets transferred by the husband should
be computed by taking the income from such business earned during the year as
multiplied with the amount of assets received by the wife from her husband as
invested in the business and divided by her total investment in the business,
including the amount of assets received from the husband.

In a nutshell, there are three
components in this formula. The first component is the income of the business,
which is to be considered for the year. The second is the amount of assets
received by the wife from her husband as invested in the business, and the
third is the total investment in the business including the amount of assets
received from the husband. The latter two figures are required to be taken as
on the first day of the previous year. Section 3 defines ‘Previous year’ to
mean ‘the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year.’ The proviso
to section 3 states that, in the case of a business newly set up in a financial
year, the previous year shall be the period beginning with the date of the
setting up of the business and ending with the said financial year. Since the
wife of the assessee started the new business of F&O on 18^th
September, 2013, the extant case is, ergo, covered by the proviso
to section 3.

Having examined the factual position
in detail, the Tribunal held that the entire amount of loss resulting from the
business of F&O started by Mrs. Priti Bhaskarwar with the gifts received
from the assessee is liable to be clubbed in the hands of the assessee.

shailesh.kwebmaker

6. [2020] 114 taxmann.com 538 (Mum.)(Trib.)

Caprihans India Ltd. vs. DCIT

ITA No. 4252/Mum/2011

A.Y.: 2005-06

Date of order: 23^rd December, 2019

I – Section 115JB – Provision for leave encashment is not to
be added back to the book profit for computation u/s 115JB as it is an
ascertained liability determined on actuarial basis

II – Provision for wealth tax was not to be reduced from
book profit to be computed u/s 115JB

FACTS I

While assessing the total income of the assessee u/s 153C
r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the A.O. for the purpose of computing book profits
added the amount of provision for leave encashment of Rs. 15,30,070 on the
ground that it was an unascertained liability. He held that the liabilities
pertaining to leave encashment were not ascertained by the end of the financial
year, therefore the assessee had made a provision for the same.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who
upheld the action of the A.O.

The assessee then preferred an appeal to the Tribunal where,
relying on the ratio of the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the case of CIT vs. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation
Ltd. [2010] 45 DTR 117 (P&H) it was contended that the provision
for leave encashment was made in the books on actuarial basis, therefore the
same could not be held to be in the nature of a provision for an unascertained
liability.

HELD I

The Tribunal held that if a business liability had definitely
arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the
liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.

It observed that this view is fortified by the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT
[2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC). In the said case, it was observed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that what should be certain is the incurring of the
liability and the fact that the same is capable of being estimated with
reasonable certainty, although the actual quantification may not be possible.
The Apex Court had observed that the provision for meeting the liability for
encashment of earned leave by the employees is not a contingent liability and
is admissible as a deduction.

In view of the above, the Tribunal held that as the provision
for leave encashment had been made by the assessee on actuarial basis,
therefore the same being in the nature of an ascertained liability could not
have been added by the A.O. for the purpose of determining the ‘book profit’
u/s 115JB. This ground of appeal of the assessee was allowed.

FACTS II

The assessee, while computing the ‘book profit’ u/s 115JB had
added back the amount of the wealth tax provision. On appeal, the assessee by
way of a specific ground had assailed the addition of the provision for wealth
tax while computing the ‘book profit’ u/s 115JB. However, the CIT(A) declined
to accept the aforesaid claim. Observing that the said provision was covered
u/s 115JB, the CIT(A) had upheld the view taken by the A.O.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal
where it was contended that as the provision for wealth tax does not fall
within any of the items of the ‘Explanation’ to section 115JB, the same could
not be added back while computing the ‘book profit’ under the said statutory
provision. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the
order of the ITAT, Kolkata, Special Bench in the case of JCIT vs. Usha
Martin Industries Ltd. [2007] 104 ITD 249 (SB).

HELD II

shailesh.kwebmaker

5. [2019] 103
taxmann.com 297 (Mum) AIG Offshore
Systems Services Inc. vs. ACIT ITA No.:
6715/Mum/2014 A.Y.: 2010-11 Dated:  18^th January, 2019

Section 48 – Legal
and professional expenditure incurred by assessee, a foreign company, for sale
of shares of its Indian subsidiary is an expenditure incurred wholly and
exclusively in connection with transfer and is allowable as deduction while
computing capital gains

FACTS

During the previous
year relevant to the assessment year in dispute, the assessee, a foreign
company, carrying on activities as a Foreign Institutional Investor, sold
shares held by it in its Indian subsidiary and offered long-term capital gains
arising from sale of shares of the Indian subsidiary.

During the course
of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the
assessee had claimed deduction of expenditure incurred towards transfer of
shares. The assessee submitted that the said expenditure represented legal /
professional fees paid to lawyers / accounting firms for assisting in transfer
of shares. The AO, however, held that:

(i)   the expenditure claimed by the assessee was
not of such nature that without incurring those expenses sale of shares could
not have been done;

(ii)   the objective behind incurring the expenses
was to optimise the economic value of the business and not for the purpose of
transfer of shares; and

(iii)  the documentary evidences relied upon by the
assessee also did not mention the name of the buyer.

The AO disallowed
the assessee’s claim for deduction of expenditure while computing capital
gains.

Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who upheld the disallowance by
holding that the expenditure incurred is in the nature of business expenditure.

Still feeling
aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal,
relying on various decisions, held that expenditure which is intrinsically
connected to the transfer of a capital asset is allowable as deduction u/s.
48(i) of the Act. On a perusal of the documents filed by the assessee, the
Tribunal observed that the expenses were towards advice on sale of entire
shareholding, preparation of share / sale / purchase agreement, preparation of
closing documents including board resolution, share transfer forms, etc., and
were therefore for the transfer of shares. The Tribunal held that it was clear
from the scope of the work that the services rendered by the legal /
professional firm was intrinsically related to transfer of shares of the Indian
subsidiary and therefore the expenditure qualified for deduction u/s. 48(i).
The Tribunal also held that non-mentioning of the name of the buyer did not, in
any way, militate against the fact that the expenditure incurred by the
assessee on account of legal and professional fees was in connection with the
transfer of shares.

The appeal of the
assessee was allowed by the Tribunal.

shailesh.kwebmaker

12. (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 261 (Jaipur) Zuberi Engineering Company vs. DCIT ITA Nos.: 977-979/JPR/2018 A.Y.s: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Dated: 21^st December, 2018

Section 251 – Power of enhancement
conferred on CIT(A) can be exercised only on the issue which is the subject
matter of the assessment. The CIT (Appeals), even while exercising its power
for enhancement u/s. 251, cannot bring a new source of income which was not
subject matter of assessment

FACTS

The assessee was a
partnership firm and a contractor engaged in erection and fabrication work. The
assessment was completed making disallowances of various expenses claimed by
the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced the assessment by
rejecting books of accounts and estimating higher net profit. On further appeal
to the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and held as under.

HELD

The power of
Commissioner (Appeals) to enhance an assessment exists in section 251. However,
this power can be exercised only on the issue which is a subject matter of the
assessment. In the instant case, the issue of not accepting the books of
accounts was never taken up by the Assessing Officer in the scrutiny
proceedings. Therefore, the same did not constitute the subject matter of the
assessment. Consequently, it is beyond the scope of the power of enhancement
available with Commissioner (Appeals).

It is a settled proposition of law that the
Commissioner (Appeals), even while exercising the power for enhancement u/s.
251, cannot bring a new source of income which was not a subject matter of the
assessment. An issue or claim discussed / taken up in the course of assessment
proceedings becomes the subject matter of assessment but all the probable
issues that are capable of being taken up for scrutiny but are not so taken up
can at most collectively constitute scope of assessment, for which Commissioner
(Appeals) cannot exercise power of enhancement.

However, the
Commissioner can exercise revisionary powers in respect of the same subject to
fulfilment of conditions specified u/s. 263. Thus, in the instant case, since
the issue of rejection of books of accounts was not the subject matter of
assessment, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) qua
the issue of the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the books of
accounts.

shailesh.kwebmaker

11. (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 79 (Amritsar) Thakur Raj Kumar vs. DCIT ITA No.: 766/Asr/2017 A.Y.: 2014-2015 Dated: 29^th November, 2018

Even in a limited scrutiny case there is no
bar on the AO as regards adjudication of issues raised by the assessee

FACTS

The assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under
Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection. However, later, it was converted to
limited scrutiny to examine an issue pertaining to capital gains on securities.
The assessee had sold an agricultural land and offered relevant capital gains
to tax. However, in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee made a
fresh claim to substitute the cost of acquisition of the land claimed by him in
return of income, for another value. The AO denied his claim citing that the
scrutiny being a limited one, he had no jurisdiction to discuss and pass
judgment on issues not covered within the reasons of scrutiny and the only
recourse available to the assessee was to file a revised return. On appeal to
Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was decided against the assessee. The
assessee therefore preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal held
that though the AO has no jurisdiction to touch upon issues which are not a
subject matter of limited scrutiny, however, there is no bar to adjudicate the
issues raised by the assessee. This is because an AO is obliged to make correct
assessment in accordance with provisions of the law. Further, in terms of
Circular No. 14 dated 11.04.1955, the department cannot take advantage of
ignorance of the assessee to collect more tax than what is legitimately due.

The matter was,
thus, remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the
assessee’s claim. Though the decision in Goetz (India) Limited vs. CIT
(2006) 284 ITR 323(SC) was relied on by the D.R., the same does not seem to
be discussed by the Tribunal.

shailesh.kwebmaker

10. (2019) 198 TTJ (Mum) 370 Hansa Shah vs. ITO ITA No.: 607/Mum/2018 A.Y.: 2011-12 Dated : 5^th October, 2018

Section 54 – An assessee is entitled to
claim deduction u/s. 54 if he purchases a new house property one year before or
two years after the date of transfer of the original asset, irrespective of the
fact whether money invested in purchase of new house property is out of sale consideration
received from the transfer of original asset or not

FACTS

During the year,
the assessee had sold a flat jointly held with others and declared her share of
capital gain at Rs. 55,82,426. However, she claimed deduction of the capital
gain u/s. 54 of the Act towards investment made of Rs. 98,90,358 in purchase of
a new flat. The AO noted that the investment of Rs. 98,90,358 included housing
loan of Rs. 50 lakh availed from Citibank. The assessee submitted that the
housing loan was not utilised for the purchase of the new house. The assessee
had produced the loan sanction letter of the bank as well as bank statement to
demonstrate that the housing loan was disbursed much after the purchase of the
new house by the assessee. In fact, the assessee had also explained the source
of funds utilised in the purchase of the new house. However, the AO rejected
the claim of the assessee and reduced the housing loan from the cost of the new
house and allowed the balance amount of Rs. 48,93,358 towards deduction u/s. 54
of the Act. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 6,92,068 towards long-term
capital gain.

Aggrieved by the
assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A)
sustained the addition made by the AO.

HELD

The Tribunal held that even assuming that the housing loan was utilised
for the purpose of purchase of new house property, it needed to be examined
whether by the reason of utilisation of housing loan in purchase of new house
property, the assessee would not be eligible to claim deduction u/s. 54 of the
Act. For this purpose, it was necessary to look into the provisions of section
54. On a careful reading of the aforesaid provision as a whole and more
particularly sub-section (1) of section 54 of the Act, it became clear that the
only condition which required to be fulfilled was, one year before or two years
after the date of transfer of the original asset the assessee must have
purchased the new house property.

In case the logic of the department that for availing deduction the
consideration received by the assessee from the sale of the original asset had
to be utilised for investment in the new house property was accepted, the
provision of section 54(1) would become redundant because such a situation
would never arise in case assessee purchased the new house property one year
before the date of transfer of new asset.

Thus, on a plain
interpretation of section 54(1) of the Act, it had to be concluded that if the
assessee purchased a new house property one year before or two years after the
date of transfer of the original asset, he was entitled to claim deduction u/s.
54 of the Act irrespective of the fact whether money invested in the purchase
of the new house property was out of the sale consideration received from transfer
of original asset or not. In the present case, the assessee had purchased the
new house property within the stipulated period of two years from the date of
transfer of the original asset. That being the case, the assessee was eligible
to avail deduction u/s. 54 of the Act.

shailesh.kwebmaker

9. [2019] 198 TTJ (Chd) 498 Genius Education Society vs. ACIT ITA No.: 238/Chd/2018 A.Y.: 
2012-13 Dated: 20^th August, 2018

Section 12A read with section 11 and 12 –
Where return of income had been filed in response to notice u/s. 148,
requirement u/s. 12A filing of return of income stood fulfilled

FACTS

The assessee applied for registration u/s. 10(23C)(vi) which was denied
by the Chief Commissioner. The assessee had also applied for registration as a
charitable society u/s. 12AA on the same day which was granted by the Principal
Commissioner, with effect from 01.04.2012 effective from assessment year
2013-14. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that for the impugned
assessment year, no return of income had been filed by the assessee and the
assessee’s application for approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) had been rejected.
Consequently, reopening proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under section
148. In response to the same, the assessee filed Nil return of income. During
assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that having been granted
registration u/s. 12AA effective from assessment year 2013-14, the benefit of
the same was available to it in the impugned year also by virtue of the first
proviso to section 12A(2).

Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the
AO, holding that benefit of second proviso was not available to the assessee since
in the present case the assessee was ineligible to claim exemption not on
account of absence of registration u/s. 12A, but because of the fact that
assessee had failed to file its return of income and report of audit, as
required under the provisions of section 12A(b).

HELD

The Tribunal held
that it was not the case of the Revenue that the reopening was valid on the
ground of absence of registration u/s. 12A for the impugned year, therefore
making its income taxable. In fact, the CIT(A) had accepted that reopening
could not have been resorted to on account of absence of registration u/s.12A
for the impugned year on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2).
Therefore, the contention of the assessee on this count was accepted by the
Revenue. But the argument of the Revenue was that because the assessee failed
to comply with the conditions of section 12A(1)(b) which was necessary for
claiming exemption u/s. 11 and 12, its income for the impugned year was
taxable, which had thus escaped assessment and, therefore, the reopening was
valid. The said conditions, as pointed out by the CIT(A), were the filing of
return of income accompanied with the report of an auditor in the prescribed
form.

The requirement of filing of return of income and the report of audit
have been specified for being eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 and 12
along with the grant of registration u/s. 12AA. The section nowhere prescribed
the filing of return by any due date, therefore the findings of the CIT(A) that
the assessee having not filed its return within the prescribed time it had
failed to comply with the requirement prescribed, was not tenable. As for the
requirement of filing report of audit in the prescribed form, the said
condition has been held by courts to be merely procedural and, therefore,
directory in nature and not mandatory for the purpose of claiming exemption
u/s. 11 and 12.

Therefore, in view
of the above, no merit was found in the argument of the Revenue that the
assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 on account of not having
complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b). Since this was the sole
basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings, it was noted
that the reassessment in the present case was invalid, on account of the second
proviso to section 12A(2) which specially debarred resort to the same in view
of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment
year. The reassessment framed was therefore set aside and the addition made was
deleted.

shailesh.kwebmaker

8. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 99 (Del) Baldev Singh vs. ITO ITA No.: 2970/Del./2015 A.Y.: 2011-12 Dated: 8^th March, 2019

Sections 10(37), 45 – Interest on enhanced
compensation received from government on compulsory acquisition of agricultural
land is exempt u/s. 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and consequently TDS
deducted on account of enhanced compensation was liable to be refunded

FACTS

The assessee, in
the return of income filed by him, claimed exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act in
respect of enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,69,20,146, received by him during the
previous year in respect of agricultural land inherited by him from his
parents.

During the course
of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the said
compensation of Rs. 4,69,20,146 comprised of Rs. 2,70,33,074 as principal and
balance Rs. 1,98,85,972 as interest and TDS amounting to Rs. 93,84,030 was
deducted, out of which Rs. 74,45,433 was refunded to the assessee and credited
to his account.

The AO, based on
the amendments made in sections 56(2), 145A(b) and 57(iv) of the Act which were
applicable with effect from 1.04.2010 held that interest on enhanced
compensation was liable to be taxed as income in the year in which it was
received, irrespective of the method of accounting followed and accordingly
taxed Rs. 99,42,986 being the interest received after allowing 50% deduction.

Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings before
CIT(A) it was contended that the Supreme Court has in CIT vs. Ghanshyam Dass
(HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 held interest on enhanced compensation to be a part
of compensation and therefore the same is exempt u/s. 10(37) of the Act. This
decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ghanshyam Dass (HUF) (supra)
has been followed in the case of CIT vs. Gobind Bhai Mamaiya [2014] 367 ITR
498 (SC)]. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO and observed that the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gobind Bhai Mamaiya (supra)
did not deal with exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act but held that interest u/s.
28 of the Land Acquisition Act is interest on enhanced compensation and is to
be treated as an accretion to the value and part of compensation. He held that
the decision of the SC in Gobind Bhai Mamaiya (supra) is not applicable
to the facts of the case.

Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Supreme Court
has, in Union of India vs. Hari Singh [(2018) 254 Taxman 126 (SC)]
relied by the assessee, set aside the matter to the AO and specifically directed
the AO to examine the facts of the case and apply the law as contained in the
Act. The SC also directed the AO to find out whether the land was agricultural
land and if that be the case then the tax deposited with the Income-tax
Department shall be refunded to the assessee.

The Tribunal
observed that the CIT(A), in his order, did not state that an amount shall be
brought to tax u/s. 45(5) without applying provisions of section 10(37) of the
Act which exempts receipts from being taxed. The Tribunal held that section
45(5) did not make reference to the nature of property acquired but dealt with
the category of cases which fell within the description of “capital assets”.
However, section 10(37) specifically exempted income chargeable under the head
capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land. It was therefore
clear that the Supreme Court specifically directed the AO to examine if the
compensation received was in respect of the agricultural land, (and if so) the
tax deposited with the Income-tax Department shall be refunded to the
depositors.

The Tribunal,
therefore, following ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT
vs. Ghanshyam Dass (supra) and Union of India vs. Hari Singh (supra)
directed the AO to refund the TDS amount deducted on account of enhanced
compensation.

The Tribunal
allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

shailesh.kwebmaker

7. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 288 (Del) National Small Industries Corp Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.: 1367/Del/2016 A.Y.: 2012-13 Dated: 25^th February, 2019

Explanation 2 to section 37(1) –
Explanation 2 to section 37(1) inserted with effect from 01.04.2015 is
prospective

FACTS

The assessee, a
public sector undertaking, established to promote and develop “Skill India”
through cottage and small industries, incurred expenses under the head
“Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) and claimed the same as deduction in
the return of income.

The Assessing
Officer (AO) was of the opinion that the claim of such expenses was towards CSR
and therefore could not be allowed. He invoked Explanation 2 to section 37(1)
of the Act and disallowed the expenditure so claimed.

Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO.

Still aggrieved,
the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal held
that Explanation 2 has been inserted in section 37(1) with effect from
01.04.2015 and the same is prospective. The amendment could not be construed as
a disadvantage to the assessee for the period prior to the amendment. The Tribunal
observed that the expense sought to be disallowed under Explanation 2 to
section 37(1) of the Act was the expenditure on CSR which provision itself came
into existence under the Companies Act in the year 2013. It observed that the
lower authorities disallowed the expenditure merely on the ground that
Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act applied to the year under
consideration and the expenditure was therefore to be disallowed.

The Tribunal,
following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika
Townships Pvt. Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC)] held that the amendment would
not affect the allowability of expenses for the assessment year under
consideration.

The appeal filed by
the assessee was allowed.

shailesh.kwebmaker

6. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 129 (Mum) ITO vs. Smart Sensors & Transducers Ltd. ITA No.: 6443/Mum/2016 A.Y.: 2011-12 Dated: 6^th March, 2019

Sections 50, 72 and 74 – Brought-forward
business loss and brought-forward long-term capital loss can be set off against
deemed short-term capital gains u/s. 50 arising on sale of factory building

FACTS

The assessee
company in its original return of income declared long-term capital loss on the
sale of its factory building. During the course of assessment proceedings, the
Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the factory building was a depreciable asset
and the gain on sale of such depreciable asset was to be treated as deemed
short-term capital gains as per section 50 of the Act. Subsequently, the
assessee revised its return of income and offered the gains from the sale of
factory building as short-term capital gains after setting-off brought-forward
business loss and brought-forward long-term capital loss.

The AO noted that
in view of section 74 of the Act, long-term capital loss can be set off only
against long-term capital gains and that as per section 72 of the Act,
brought-forward business loss can be set off against business income and not
against short-term capital gains. The AO, thus, disallowed the assessee’s claim
for brought-forward business loss and brought-forward capital loss.

The aggrieved
assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) who, considering the decision of the
Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Manali Investments [(2013) 219 Taxman 113 (Bom
HC)] allowed the assessee’s appeal.

Aggrieved, the
Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal,
following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.
Manali Investments (supra), allowed the assessee’s claim for set-off of
brought-forward long-term capital loss against deemed short-term capital gains
u/s. 50. The Tribunal noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its decision
had held that by virtue of section 50, only the capital gain is to be computed
u/s. 50 and the deeming fiction is restricted only for the purposes of section
50 and the benefit of set-off of long-term capital loss u/s. 74 has to be
allowed.

As regards the
set-off of brought-forward business loss, this issue was also covered by the
decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Manali Investments (supra).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed the assessee’s claim for set-off of brought-forward business loss as well as
brought-forward long-term capital loss against deemed short-term capital gains
computed u/s. 50.

The Tribunal
dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

shailesh.kwebmaker