Cancellation of sales of immovable property held as stock in trade entitles assessee to revise return under section 139(5)

[2012] 27 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai - Trib.)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'A'

Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-8(3)(OSD)

Cessation of liability to repay loan for capital asset is capital receipt

Section 41(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 - Remission or cessation of trading liability - Repayment of loan - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether cessation of liability to repay a loan taken to purchase a capital asset does not result in a revenue receipt and it is not taxable under section 41(1) - Held, yes [Para 8 & 9] [In favour of assessee]

Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income - Value of benefit arising from exercise of business or profession - Whether cessation of liability to repay a loan taken to purchase a capital asset does not result in a revenue receipt and it is not taxable under section 28(iv) - Held, yes [Para 8 & 9] [In favour of assessee]

[2012] 26 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Commissioner of Income-tax-3

v.

Xylon Holdings (P.) Ltd.*

S.J. VAZIFDAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.

IT APPEAL NO. 3704 OF 2010†

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012

No addition can be made u/s 69A on th basis of statement recordrd at the back of assessee

Section 69A read with section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money - Opportunity of hearing - On basis of search conducted against third person and his statements recorded therein, assessment for assessee was reopened and additions were made under section 69A - Tribunal deleted additions on ground that Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice as assessee was not provided with statements and materials on basis of which additions were made - Whether though Tribunal's reasoning about denial of opportunity to assessee could not be faulted with, but in light of decision of Supreme Court in ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi [2011] 334 ITR 262/20 taxmann.com 733, matter was to be remitted back for fresh consideration by Assessing Officer who would proceed to make available necessary documents adverse to assessee - Held, yes [Para 5] [Matter remanded]

[2012] 27 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi)

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Commissioner of Income-tax

v.

PC Chemicals*

S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ.

IT APPEAL NOS. 281, 282, 285 TO 287 & 364 TO 366 OF 2012

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012

Excise duty not to be included in value of stock

Supreme Court [2012] 26 taxmann.com 331 (SC) SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Valuation of stock - Excise duty - Assessment years 1995-96 and 1997-98 - Whether where assessee is following net method of valuation of closing stock, excise duty is to be excluded from value of closing stock of finished goods at end of accounting period - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of assessee]
The judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 384/112 Taxman 555 squarely applies to this case and the same has been affirmed by this Court, which is reported in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.[2003] 261 ITR 275/130 Taxman 179 (SC)

Cenvat Credit of duty paid more than liability can be claimed

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the duty has been paid in excess of the amount finally held to be payable, unless the excess duty paid has been refunded, the assessee could claim cenvat credit as the department could not get the duty twice. Reliance has been placed on order of this Court dated 22-7-2010 in CEA No. 42 of 2010 Commissioner Central Excise v. Guwahati Carbons Ltd. (Punj. & Har.) wherein after referring to earlier judgments of this Court in CCE v. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd. 2006 (203) E.L.T. 213 (Punj. & Har.) andCCE v. Swaraj Automotives Ltd. 2002 (139) E.L.T. 504 (Punj. & Har.) and judgment of Madras High Court in CCE v. CEGAT, Chennai 2006 (202) E.L.T. 753 the plea of the assessee was upheld. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to distinguish the applicability of the judgment relied upon on behalf of the appellant.