|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 1000 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ld be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purpose of the trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. 1993 199 ITR 43 is distinguishable for the above reasons. It cannot be held that double benefit is given in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” No other decision, which would go against assessee, was brought to our attention. Hence, we are of the opinion that the assessee has to succeed in these appeals. Depreciation has to be considered for the purpose of calculating the income of the assessee even under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 24th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 999 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t the Tribunal has considered and followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce, referred to supra. As pointed out the by the assessee there is a mistake apparent from record and consequently the same is rectified and the following lines in the order of the Tribunal in CO No. 189/Mds/2009 dated 14-10-2010 stands expunged “ In the light of the above, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the allowability or extent of allowability of notional expenses when the ld. CIT(Appeals)’s direction is to recompute the quantum of expenses which should not be available for deduction but in conformity with the provisions of Rule 8D. We acknowledge the decision of ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue as he has given appropriate direction to the Assessing Officer.” In the circumstances, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee stands allowed. 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 24/06/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 998 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... stified in upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, on merits? 6.8 Further, the assessee, on the basis of information from other departments can be under a bona fide belief that the ICD is an inland port. Therefore, if a claim is made for deduction by furnishing all the facts and the claim is supported by the audit report, it will not be feasible for us to record a finding that the income has been concealed or any inaccurate particular of income has been furnished. Accordingly, it is held that the lower authorities were not right in levying/sustaining the penalty. 7. The facts for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are admitted to be identical with the facts for assessment year 2003-04 (supra). By relying on the order for assessment year 2003-04, it is held that the levy of penalty for these years was also not justified. 8. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 997 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... I 29,00,972/- 0.02% 2 Mine IA 9,74,632/- 0.01% 3 Thermal I 97,44,994/- 0.05% 4 Thermal I expansion 88,99,141/- 0.05% 5 Others 6,32,346/- 0.00% Total 2,31,52,085/- 0.12% 13. In any case, clause(i) of Section 30 of the Act allow an assessee to claim expenses incurred for insurance premium for premises and clause(ii) of Section 31 allow it to claim such premium expenses on machines, plant or furniture, all on payment basis. Sections do not say that such premium is allowable only for the period covered in a given previous year. Thus, we are of the opinion the expenditure could not have been disallowed. The disallowance therefore, stands deleted. Ground NO.4 of the assessee is allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-09 is partly allowed. 14. To summarise the results, appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is dismissed, wheereas appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2011. Order pronounced on 30th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 996 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... orities. The AO determined profit on the basis of return on average capital employed during the year and @ 12% thereof. No exercise was carried out to examine whether the results in past were commensurate when compare with application of this method. In any case, such a method is an unusual method, which is unheard of. The ld. CIT(Appeals) after discussing the matter in paragraph nos. 3.5 and 3.6, summarily estimated net profit at 2.5% of the disclosed sale without disclosing any basis. No third party evidence or past results of the assessee have been considered to arrive at this decision. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the part addition upheld by him. Since, we are of the view that the book results could not have been disturbed, it follows that the question of restoration of the order of the AO does not arise. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 995 - INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... es. On the basis of such observations, the AO disallowed 20% of the total payments made in cash and made the addition of ₹ 43,619/-. Ld. CIT(Appeals) however deleted this addition. 39. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that only dispute is whether payments made to truck driver is covered under exceptions of Rule, 6DD of the Income-tax Rules or not. We further find that Ld. CIT(Appeals) himself has mentioned in his order that payments in question were not covered under the Rules 6DD of the I.T. Rules. Therefore he was not justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 43,619/- made by Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and that of Assessing Officer is restored. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is allowed. 39. In the result, appeals of assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this day of 8th July, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 994 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... restored back to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. Following the same, the matter is restored back to the file of the A.O. This ground of assessee’s C.O. is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The 3rd ground relates to disallowance of ₹ 8,75,103/- on account of use of car, car depreciation and telephone expenses. At the time of hearing both the parties agreed that the issue is covered by the decision of ITAT in I.T.A.No. 2886/-Ahd/2006 wherein these disallowances have been restricted to 1/5th of the total expenditure. Following the same and to maintain consistency for this year also, we hereby direct to disallow only 1/5th of the total expenditure incurred by the assessee on these heads. This ground of assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 993 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... side India or expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in providing the technical services outside India;” The combined reading of the definition of software as given in clause (i) of Explanation (2) and “export turnover” as defined in clause (iii) above, would go to show that “export turnover” of computer software means consideration received in respect of export of computer software but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance to the delivery of computer software outside India or expenses incurred in foreign exchange in providing technical services outside India.” 7. In view of the above, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh following the Special Bench decision (supra) and allow this ground for statistical purposes only, in both these years. 8. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 992 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... he return of income. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction of excise duty to the extent the same has been paid by the assessee company before the due date for filing of the return of income. 11. The fifth ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing the claim of section 80HHC deduction out of book profits before arriving at the profits for MAT. This issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in the light of the relevant judicial pronouncements. 12. The sixth ground raised by the assessee is against the adjustment of add backs to book profits for the purpose of MAT. As already held for the earlier assessment year, this ground is rejected. 13. In result these two appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 21st day of June, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (6) TMI 991 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ding by the residential houses and other complexes does not change the character of a particular land. Land in question is not a piece of land only as the same is industrial establishment which was established about 120 years ago. The property has been changed under various hands. The necessary licences etc. have been issued establishing the property as industrial establishment. The ld. CIT (A) has considered the aspect minutely and has taken into consideration the order of AO and submissions of ld. A/R and thereafter the ld. CIT (A) found that the landing question is an industrial establishment and exempt from Wealth-tax. The finding of ld. CIT (A) which are reproduced somewhere above remained uncontroverted, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT (A) and accordingly we confirm the finding of ld. CIT (A) for all the years. 14. In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed. 14. The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise." 25. For the foregoing reasons, even though there is a scope to conclude that sufficient opportunity could have been given to the petitioner to give explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.3.2010, I am of the considered opinion that that by itself is not sufficient to hold the respondents guilty of contempt. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to workout her remedy against the order of cancellation of licence stated to have been passed by the second respondent on 21.10.2010 and she is not entitled to any relief in this contempt petition. In the result, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Sub Application No.510 of 2010 is closed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 989 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 0. In spite of that the official respondents did not care to implement the orders of this Court and after we entertained the contempt case by issuing notice before admission on 04.06.010, after several adjournments and filing of counter affidavits, six months thereafter the said order dated 14.12.2010 was passed showing as if the official respondents have implemented the orders of this Court. The said belated compliance is thus neither bonafide nor justified on any ground and as such, we hold that the respondents 1 to 3 are guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of orders of this Court in WP.No.13039 of 1999. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the respondents to Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within six weeks from today and the contempt case be listed on 1.7.2011 for appearance of the respondents 1 to 3 for imposing appropriate sentence.
-
2011 (6) TMI 988 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... year at ₹ 75,000/- and gave further benefit of net income of ₹ 42,175/- (₹ 85,175/- declared income for the assessment year 2006-07 (minus) withdrawals of ₹ 42,000/- as per cash flow statement). In our view, there is no reason as to why similar benefit of cash accumulation should not be allowed for the five earlier years also. If the cash in hand as on 31-3-2000 at ₹ 38,859/- is accepted, then in the next five years, cash in hand will grow to ₹ 2,74,448/- as against ₹ 75,000/- allowed by the CIT(A). Considering the entire facts and the circumstances, there was no justification in sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,97,825/- by the CIT(A), particularly, when there is no material on record to show that the assessee has made investment elsewhere. In view of the above, we delete the addition of ₹ 1,97,825/- sustained by the CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the Open Court on 7th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 987 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... morandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill 2006 states that this amendment would take effect from 01.04.2007. The Court further held that even in the absence of sub-sect ion (2) and (3) of Sect ion 14A and Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer was not precluded from making apportionment on account of expenditure relatable to earning of exempt income. 7. The CIT(A) while deciding the present issue had also observed that the provisions of Rule 8-D were not applicable but had disallowed a sum of ₹ 50,000/ - being relatable to the earning of exempt income. 8. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we uphold the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- being expenditure relatable to the earning of the exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 21st day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 986 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ing authority has not taken into consideration the cost of the improvement to the land. It is noticed that the learned CIT(A) has only directed that the deduction on account of the land development expenses actually debited to the books of account of the company along with the indexation of such expenses was liable to be allowed as per law. It is noticed that the learned CIT(A) has not given any quantified amount but has left the same to the Assessing Officer to verify if such expenses are recorded in the books. If the expenses are recorded in the books, then obviously the assessee is entitled to the claim of expenses along with the indexation, if any, available. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) on both the issues are on a right footing and does not call for any interference. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed. 12. The order was pronounced in the court on 24/06/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 985 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dealt with by the Tribunal with regard to the issuance of rewarehousing certificate as is also found, the modus is completely unacceptable. As nothing procured illegal or in connivance with the officer of department can by no stretch of imagination justify the action of citizen. The entire gamut of facts eloquently and inescapably speak of wholesale illegality obviously to defraud the Revenue and in the opinion of this Court the same has been appropriately dealt with. As rightly held by the Tribunal even in absence of statement recorded during the Course of investigation, there are other cogent material collected to establish the factum of clandestine and mala fide removal of the goods. Thus, in light of the discussion hereinabove, this Court finds no justifiable reason to sustain the say of the appellant and interfere with the Order of Tribunal. 20. Resultantly, with no question of law to be determined, this Appeal merit no consideration and is dismissed therefor.
-
2011 (6) TMI 984 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... lowance of expenditure under the heads commission, brokerage and legal consultancy. Grounds No.1 to 4 are therefore dismissed. 7. In respect to fifth ground regarding lack of reconciliation of the gross receipts as returned by the assessee and as quoted in the TDS certificates, no further clarification has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee as of now is also dismissed. 8. On the last ground being 10% arbitrary disallowance of salary, the learned Counsel has not been able to furnish whether the 10% salary disallowed could be identified with those employees who refused to respond to the summons issued u/s.133(6) as prayed for confirming the same other than restoring to the Assessing Officer for affording another opportunity to explain the same, we have no alternative but to confirm the same. The disallowance of 10% salary is therefore, confirmed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 17th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 983 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to his defence in the said suit. He has shown his adamance in refusing to make payment and has chosen to multiply the litigation by filing a separate suit for setting aside the decree passed in O.S. No. 9869/1990 on the ground of alleged fraud and misrepresentation and also by making an attempt to convert the separate suit virtually into an appeal against the ex-parte decree passed in O.S. No. 9869/1990. The same would show that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. 38. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no defect or infirmity in the judgment of the learned single judge passed in C.S. No. 434 of 2007 and no case for the interference with the judgment and decree of the learned single judge has been made out. There is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves confirmation and no interference. 39. In the result, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 982 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... posed of by permitting the decree-holder to canvass the balance claim before the official liquidator and to carry a subsequent execution application, if the decree-holder is so entitled, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (6) TMI 981 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... aid document had unearthed a concealed business activity of the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence, the addition so made by the AO remained un-corroborated, hence, we hereby reverse the findings and allow this ground. 19. For AY 2006-07, Ground No.2 is as follows - “2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad has erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,05,766/- being the amount found in the bank account of the appellant without considering the explanations and submissions made by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. The addition of ₹ 3,05,766/- being erroneous in facts and in law is prayed to be directed to be deleted.” 19.1. This ground is not pressed, hence dismissed. 20. In the result, appeal for AY 2002-03 is allowed, and appeals for rest of the AYs, i.e. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30th June, 2011.
........
|
