×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
These appeals are filed by the assessees against the separate orders of ld.CIT(A), Ajmer dated 05-10-2017 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in the matter of assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 982/JP/2017 for the A.Y 2014-15 are as under: -
1. That the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has grossly erred in confirming the additions in the hands of Director regarding the sale of Depreciated Asset (Tow House No. 70 situated at Village-Shilloar Raicher Panvel District Raigad), as the same was solely owned, used possessed and was acquired by investing its own funds by the company-M/s. Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd despite all evidences as regards payments by company, used of asset, depreciation and credits into Company’s Account and Depreciated Asset A/c on record.
2. That, without prejudice to Ground 1 & 3, the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has erred in computing the taxable Capital Gain at Rs. 30,49,156/-. The same ought to be Rs.20,71,917/- as under: -
3. That the Capital Gain has suffered double taxation as ld. AO has subjected one sale transaction to tax in the hands of Appellant (Director) as well as M/s. Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd confirming additions in both files is bad in law and facts of the case. Simultaneous appeals are being submitted by Appellant and Company.
4. That the Appellant craves to add, amend and alter any of the grounds before or at the time of appellate hearing.”
3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 983/JP/2017 for the A.Y 2014-15 are as under:-
1. That the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has grossly erred in confirming the additions/taxability merely on the basis that the property was purchased in the name of appellant’s director Shri Sanjay Jindal as: -Appellant was the actual and beneficial owner of the property. -Appellant funds have been utilized for the purchase of property and sale proceeds was also received by the company only.
-Since the day company purchased the property it has been shown as assets of the company, was being used by its staff as staff residential quarter. -Depreciation has been allowed to appellant on the property in all earlier scrutiny assessment order u/s. 143(2) of Income tax Act, 1961.
2. That the ld. CIT(A) Ajmer has grossly erred in confirming the additions/taxability for one sale transaction in two hands, in the hands of Appellant company, M/s. Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd and its director, Sh. Sanjay Jindal. (Simultaneous Appeals are being preferred against Orders 689 & 691 dated 05.10.2017)
3. That without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) Ajmer, has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 33,26,223/- in the hands of Appellant Company as:
-The ld. CIT(A) Ajmer, has erred by overlooking the Accounting Concepts and Income Tax Provisions as regards taxability of an asset in Depreciable Building Block 10%
-The Appellant’s treatment is in accordance with IT Provisions and needs no interference. Opening WDV of the Block (Building 10%) 46,82,099 Add: Two Additions (49,77,498 + 45,95,748) 95,73,246 Less: Sale Proceeds 47,00,000 95,55,345 Less: Allowable Depreciation (Section 32) 7,25,747 CLOSING WDV 88,29,598
- That profit on sale of property amounting Rs.3326223/- was only book profit, not the profit as per Income tax act, 1961. Hence, the same have already been added by the appellant while computing the loss as per provision of Income tax act, 1961
4. That without prejudice to the above, appellant has also not been allowed the excess depreciation which would have been if the property under consideration was not purchased by the company, accordingly sales consideration would also have not been deducted from the block value while computing the depreciation for the year under consideration as per Income tax act, 1961.
5. That the Appellant craves to add, amend and alter any of the grounds before or at the time of appellate hearing.
4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee company M/s Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. purchased residential building for use of its staffs in the year 2007. The