1. As per the settled position in law, interest accrued on compensation received<\/strong> It is pertinent to point out that this amount cannot be characterized as compensation 2. Mere execution of sale deed without complete transfer of consideration does<\/strong> After giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record, it comes up as an admitted 3. Revisionary order u\/s 264 passed without considering assessee’s written<\/strong> A perusal of the impugned order will also indicate that reliance is placed by PCIT on certain 4. CBDT rightly refused request for condonation of delay as assessee was<\/strong> Where assessee requested to condone delay in filing return for A.Y. 2020-21 due to COVID-19 5. AO cannot travel beyond the mandate, he cannot proceed to make any other<\/strong> We observe that the assessee has not made proper submissions during the reassessment 6. Provision on account of \u2018Customer Loyalty Points\u2019 to be allowed if it was<\/strong> Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Allowability of (Provision) – Important Judicial Precedents 1. As per the settled position in law, interest accrued on compensation received can be termed as capital receipt & hence, not taxable: HC [2024-TIOL-960-HC-DEL-IT_ITA 1114\/2018 _PCIT-4 Vs. INS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD] It is pertinent to point out that this amount cannot be characterized as compensation granted by the Court on account of cancellation of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-direct-tax"],"yoast_head":"\n
\ncan be termed as capital receipt & hence, not taxable: HC<\/strong>
\n[2024-TIOL-960-HC-DEL-IT_ITA 1114\/2018 _PCIT-4 Vs. INS FINANCE AND<\/strong><\/em>
\nINVESTMENT PVT LTD]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n
\ngranted by the Court on account of cancellation of the auction. Rather, such an amount was
\na bonafide amount of the successful auction bidder, which he had deposited against the
\npurchase of the land. The amount so received by the assessee was the entitlement of the
\nsuccessful bidder which was given back to the assessee vide an order of the Court. Thus, when the amount in question was not in the nature of compensation, then, as a natural
\ncorollary, the interest accrued on the said amount cannot tantamount to revenue receipts
\nand hence, the same cannot be subjected to tax as per Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act.<\/p>\n
\nnot constitute transfer of property for purpose of levying capital gains: ITAT<\/strong>
\n[2024-TIOL-834-ITAT-DEL _ ITO Vs. DHARAMPAL,]<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nfact that at the time of execution of the sale deed in the year 2006, the assessee along with
\nhis brothers had sold the agricultural land by way of five sale deeds for a total sale
\nconsideration of Rs.4,95,76,932\/- and a part payment of sum of Rs.1,24,05,662\/- was paid by
\nway of cheque which was encashed. However, the balance sale consideration of
\nRs.3,71,71,270\/- was paid by post-dated cheques which were dishonoured and for which
\nthere was litigation between the parties and, subsequently, compromise was effected on
\n21st March 2010 in furtherance of which the amount was paid and, thereafter, the physical
\npossession of the entire land was transferred to the prospective vendee. As a matter of fact,
\non account of the court injunction, the title in the land was not conveyed under the
\nregistered sale deed and the final and complete transfer only occurred in March 2010 when
\nthe complete consideration was paid and possession was handed over to the prospective
\nvendee.<\/p>\n
\nsubmissions; order relies on undisclosed information sourced from third<\/strong>
\nparties: HC<\/strong>
\n[2024-TIOL-1076-HC-KAR-IT_Writ Petition No. 4623 Of 2024 (T-IT)_MR SHAMEER<\/strong>
\nRAZAIK Vs. PCIT]<\/strong><\/p>\n
\ninformation said to have been procured\/prescribed from the Stock Exchange and Banks. In
\nthis regard, the material on record would indicate that there is nothing to show that the said
\ninformation had been furnished to the petitioner for the purpose of enabling him to have his
\nsay\/explanation and as such impugned order is violative the principles of natural justice and
\nthe same deserves to be set-aside.<\/p>\n
\nregularly filing belated returns: HC<\/strong>
\n[[2024] 163 taxmann.com 148 (Delhi-HC) Lava International Ltd. vs. CBDT]<\/strong><\/p>\n
\npandemic, in view of fact that financials for relevant year were duly finalized and signed on
\n31-7-2020, however return of income was filed on 30-3-2021, furthermore, assessee was
\nregularly filing belated return, recital of said facts clearly demolished any assertion of
\nfinancial constraints that might have befallen assessee, and thus, impugned order refusing
\nto condone delay for late filing of return was justified.<\/p>\n
\nadditions beyond the reasons recorded to reopen the assessment: ITAT<\/strong>
\n[2024-TIOL-789-ITAT-DEL_ITA No.2233\/Del\/2023_SUKH DARSHAN SINGH Vs. ITO]<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nproceedings and appellate proceedings, it does not matter as long as the information is
\ncoming from the proceedings. In this case, the AO was satisfied that the assessee owned
\nagricultural land and sold the same during this assessment year. Therefore, the mandate to
\nreopen the assessment was completed by bringing on record the relevant documents to
\nprove the sources of cash deposits. Therefore, the AO cannot travel beyond the mandate, he
\ncannot proceed to make any other additions beyond the reasons recorded to reopen the
\nassessment. Therefore, confirming the other additions beyond the mandate is uncalled for
\nAccordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on merits.<\/p>\n
\ncreated on scientific basis: ITAT<\/strong>
\n[2024] 164 taxmann.com 84 (Chennai – Trib.) _Titan Company Ltd. vs. ACIT]<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nAssessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 – Assessee had created customer loyalty points (CLP)
\nprovision based on estimated percentage of redemption – Assessing Officer held that
\nassessee had not adopted any scientific method for creating this provision and this being
\nsimpliciter provision, same was not allowable expenditure – It was observed that system
\nadopted by assessee was based on scientific method as propounded by Supreme Court in
\ncase of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT reported in [2009] 180 Taxman 422\/314 ITR 62
\n(SC)(SC) – Assessee had been consistently following same method and even creation of
\nprovision created based on remedy percentage of redemption was on scientific basis – As
\nregards to excess provision, difference between provisions created for a particular year and
\nactual expenditure incurred in subsequent year, difference was offered to tax – Whether in
\nview of aforesaid, CLP provision was to be allowed as deduction – Held, yes [Para 3.4] [In
\nfavour of assessee]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"