|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1783 Records
-
2005 (12) TMI 600 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... present case, no particulars whatsoever were placed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of the Income Tax. 6. Even as far as the petitioner’s own hospital is concerned, the Commissioner has pointed out as to how the fees are charged for OPD in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order. He has also referred to the payments received by the Members - Directors out of the gross profit and thereafter he has observed in para-11 of the impugned order that the charges payable by the patients are at par with any other hospital of the same kind in the region. Absence of any scheme providing confessional or free treatment to the socially or financially weaker sections of the population indicates that the receipts of the hospital were not different from those of the other privately run hospitals. This being so, the Commissioner of Income Tax was constrained to take the view that he has taken and we do not find any error in it. 7. In the circumstances, the Petition is rejected.
-
2005 (12) TMI 594 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... s sham. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, I find that the assessee had led necessary evidence before the Assessing Officer, who rejected the same without showing as to how it was not reliable. Considering all the facts in entirety, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance. By reversing the impugned order, I direct the deletion of this addition. An announcement to this effect was made during the course of hearing itself. 5. No argument was raised by the ld. A.R. with regard to sustenance of small disallowances out of expenses debited to the P & L account. It is observed that the disallowance represents a very small portion of the expenditure incurred under respective heads, which has been made on account of lack of proper evidence in support of the expenses. In my considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in sustaining this disallowance. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the genuineness of the loan transactions had not been established. In the light of the said material which the authorities below have appreciated and relied upon in support of their conclusion, it is difficult to see how the finding regarding the genuineness of the loan transactions can be described as perverse. It is also not possible in the light of the said evidence to hold that the finding regarding the non-genuineness of the transactions was so irrational that no reasonable or prudent person could have arrived at the same. 4. In the totality of these circumstances, therefore, and in view of the clear findings of fact recorded by the authorities that the alleged loan transactions had not been proved by the assessee and the burden that lay upon the assessee was not discharged in terms of section 68 of the Act, we see no reason to interfere especially when no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal, accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 578 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the argument of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. 5. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, the commission as earned by the assessee has been approved in the board meeting, which is relevant to the assessment year 1997-98. It is further clear that the TDS has also been deducted only for the assessment year 1997-98 and not for the assessment year prior to that. This Court, in a comparable set of facts, in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Bros. (P) Ltd. (1999) 151 CTR (Mad) 598 had taken the view that the income is taxable in the assessment year in which the same has been approved by the board. As a matter of fact, the said decision has also been taken aid by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal. Hence, we are of the view that the appeal requires no entertainment, as the issue follows the Division Bench judgment of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the tax case (appeal) is dismissed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2005 (12) TMI 575 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppendix 1, Block 3, Item No. 2 (iii) of Rule 5 which is described as “Moulds used in rubber and plastic goods factories.” 1. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 2.As can be seen from the impugned order of Tribunal dated 27th August, 2004, it has found as a matter of fact that the dyes and moulds were used in manufacturing of various plastic components which are used for the purposes of assembling of air coolers manufactured by the assessee. The Tribunal has also referred to the list of 28 parts manufactured by user of these dyes and moulds as available in the paper book. 3. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the impugned order of Tribunal which concurs with the order of Commissioner (Appeals), is based on facts on record after appreciation of evidence. 4.In the result, in absence of any substantial question of law, the appeals are dismissed. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected matter.
-
2005 (12) TMI 570 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tioners have succeeded, the Bank Guarantees that may have been furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order are required to be released. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the Bank Guarantees that may have been furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 8/8/2001 passed in the aforesaid Civil Applications within a period of eight weeks from today. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs. CIVIL APPLICATIONS No. 3323 & 3322 OF 2005. Though both these Civil Applications have not been listed on the Board as the main petitions have been disposed of today the Civil Applications are taken up for hearing and disposal as the papers are available. Both these applications seek fixation of early hearing of the main petition. By an order of the even date, both the main petitions have been finally adjudicated. In the circumstances, these Civil Applications do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (12) TMI 563 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... egards increase in the expenses, the assessee has furnished valid reasons. It is also true that when the factory was closed for 7 months in the earlier year and 5 months in the current year, the figures of earlier year was not directly comparable. The assessee had contended that all the vouchers were produced and were also test checked by the Assessing Officer. To what extent the vouchers were not produced are not mentioned by the Assessing Officer or Learned CIT(A). Considering the fact and the stand taken by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A), we restrict the disallowance to ₹ 5,000 as against ₹ 50,000 sustained by Learned CIT(A). 6. The last ground of appeal is relating to disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery amounting to ₹ 919. At the time of hearing, no mistake in such disallowance has been pointed out. We, accordingly, sustain the disallowance on depreciation. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 557 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is aspect when an Appeal was carried by the respondent to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and that deduction is rightly granted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Question No.3 is with respect to the wages to various employees being credited to suspence account. That issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. reported in 236 ITR page 518. 6. As far as question No.4, which is sought to be raised in this matter is concerned, that is also decided in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Empico Traders reported in 47 Sales Tax Cases page 426. 7. In the circumstances, we entertain this Application on question No.1 and answer it in favour of the revenue by consent of both parties. As far as the other three questions are concerned, this Application does not deserve to be entertained on these three questions and it is accordingly disposed of.
-
2005 (12) TMI 554 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Limited. In these circumstances,no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of Tribunal. 2.However, even if it can be stated that a substantial question of law arises the same is already answered and, therefore, it is not necessary to admit the appeals and await service of admission as the question stands answered in favour of the assessee. 3.In the result, the Tax Appeals stand dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 527 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... epending upon any adjustment needed. This issue has been decided by the hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 261 ITR 275, wherein it has been held that (headnote) ldquo that merely because the modvat credit was an irreversible credit available to manufacturers upon purchase of duty-paid raw material that would not amount to income which was liable to be taxed under the Act. Income was not generated to the extent of the modvat credit on unconsumed raw material rdquo . A similar issue has been decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the assessee rsquo s favour in the assessee rsquo s own case in I. T. A. No. 7909/M/94 for the assessment year 1992-93. Respectfully following the decision of the hon rsquo ble apex court this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 525 - HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture and production of bread was entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act - Claim of deduction u/s 1OB allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 517 - ITAT CHENNAI
Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... onditions must exist and if either of them is absent, the CIT, in our view, cannot assume jurisdiction under section 263. Here in this case, the audit report and other relevant records go to show that there is no violation, of section 40A(3) and that being the case the CIT has not given any reason under which material evidence which he is in possession so as to satisfy himself with, that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT has not satisfied the requirement for invoking the section 263 discretionary powers. The learned Departmental Representative also could not say regarding the assumption of jurisdiction particularly in this case by the learned CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the learned CIT passed under section 263, dated 23-3-2005, for the assessment year 2002-03. 4. In the result, the assessee succeeds and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 514 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r Chapter-VI-A, first step is to compute income under the head Business and profession and then to compute gross total income. However, the assessee had tried to completely disown the provisions of section 32 of the Act as a part of tax planning, so that it may claim such depreciation, when the income of Silvassa unit becomes taxable. The basic motive of such tax planning is to avoid the payment of legitimate taxes. The beneficial provisions available under the Income-tax Act cannot be claimed to be lsquo disowned rsquo in such a way. 3.4 In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A), who confirmed the allowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 85,81,644 in respect of fixed assets installed at Silvassa Unit which resulted in reduction of total income derived from the said unit for the purpose of special deduction. The same is upheld. 4. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and that of the assessee rsquo s appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 513 - ITAT MUMBAI
Charitable or religious trust ... ... ... ... ..... view of our finding with regard to the earlier grounds that the income earned by the assessee trust through holding meetings/seminars, which are incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee trust, are not to be considered as business income, we hold that the amount of Rs. 19,06,809 applied by the assessee trust towards capital expenditure are to be considered as amount applied towards attainment of its objectives. 21. With regard to ground No. 9, we find that interest income and dividend income were allowed to be exempted under section 11 of the IT Act for the preceding assessment years. The facts and circumstances in the present year being similar and considering the facts that the revenue authorities have not brought any material on record to show that these incomes are not eligible for exemption, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow exemption in respect of interest and dividend income. 22. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI
Powers Of Appellate Tribunal - whether or not the assessee, if it is to be taxed on the same rate as an Indian company, should have been taxed at the rate applicable for a ‘closely held domestic company’ or at a rate applicable for a ‘company in which public are substantially interested’ ? - HELD THAT:- The powers of the Tribunal are not confined to deal with the issues arising out of the orders of the authorities below. As long an issue has relevance to the correct determination of taxes in respect of the year, and particularly when relevant facts can be found from the material already on record, it is open to the appellant and the cross objector, whether assessee or revenue, to raise that issue, provided the issue so raised is bona fide and the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. There is no difference between the assessee and the revenue on this issue as both of these parties are equal parties before us and their rights are the same.
We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is not always prevented from passing orders which may result in enhancement of the assessee’s tax liability beyond the tax liability determined by the Assessing Officer. In other words, it is not always necessary that as a result of the proceeding following assessee having been carried in appeal, the assessee cannot be worse off vis-a-vis the position in the event of his having simply accepted the order which is so carried in appeal. The rule preventing enhancement of assessee’s tax liability, beyond the liability fixed by the Assessing Officer, is not universal and without exceptions to the said rule.
The reason for revenue not taking up this plea earlier is the retrospective amendment in law. There can be any lack of bona fides in this reason; nobody can be expected to have the clairvoyance of knowing as to what the amendments in the statute will be in future. When the law so permitted, the Assessing Officer happily gave the relief prayed for. The legal position has changed now. The appellate proceedings are still on and there cannot be any excuse for any appellate authority to decide the issue in any manner except in accordance with the law as is in existence at the point of time, for the relevant assessment year, when the appeal is being heard. The appeal before us, even in original grounds of appeal, seeks us to decide what is correct rate of tax chargeable on the income of the appellant. If the correct rate of tax is the rate which neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has applied, we have no option except to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the law.
We are dealing with a purely legal question which, on being decided in accordance with the law, could result in enhancement of tax liability vis-a-vis the tax liability as a result of appeal effect order but neither there is an enhancement of income, nor there is an enhancement in the tax liability vis-a-vis the tax liability determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act as framed by him originally.
Thus, we deem it fit and proper to vacate the order of the CIT(A) which is not in accordance with the correct legal position now in force. The matter shall now be sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. While doing so, he will give due and fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter by way of a speaking order.
The appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.
-
2005 (12) TMI 464 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision - Of Orders prejudicial to interests of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... at the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as held by several authorities in this regard and discussed above. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act is the result of a change of opinion and what all that the CIT acting under section 263 wants is the substitution of his own opinion to that of the Assessing Officer, which is clearly impermissible within the scope of section 263 of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and also the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. cited supra, the principles of which are elaborately discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 12. In the light of the above discussions, we find lot of merits in the contentions of Shri Y.P. Trivedi appearing for the assessee and have no hesitation in vacating the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act. It is accordingly vacated. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 463 - ITAT MUMBAI
Minimum alternate tax ... ... ... ... ..... notice. We, therefore, rectify this Tribunal order by holding that as per the provisions of section 115JA(2), a separate Profit and Loss Account shall be prepared which shall be as per Parts II and III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 and also should be in conformity with the Provisos to section 115JA(2) and adjustment as per the Explanation to section 115JA(2) shall be made to the net profit as per such Profit and Loss Account prepared as per section 115JA(2). Since, no such Profit and Loss Account is considered by the lower authorities, we restore this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding this issue afresh in the light of above discussion after considering the Profit and Loss Account prepared by the assessee as per the provisions of section 115JA(2) and then pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, this Miscellaneous Application of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 462 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ich is of capital nature for making the disallowance we find that it is not in dispute that the full details of the expenditure in question were filed before the Assessing Officer and the CIT. The CIT has alleged that the Assessing Officer has not examined these details. We further observe that after examining these details, the CIT could not bring on record even a single instance of expenditure of capital nature which was included in these expenses. In the circumstances there is no material before us to come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer accepted these details without examination. Hence no error could be pointed out by the CIT in respect of these expenses in the order of the Assessing Officer. The setting aside of the same to allow the Assessing Officer to have second innings is not permissible. Therefore, the order of the CIT is modified as stated above. The grounds of appeal are partly allowed. 26. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 461 - ITAT DELHI
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... ready held that the property should be capable of being used as a residential house and need not be actually used as a residence. In view of the above conclusion, the above case laws are not of much relevance to decide the controversy in the present case. In the decision in the case of Sham Sunder Mukhija (supra), the Tribunal has taken a view that a farm house is also a residential house as it was capable of being used as a residence. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the basement was capable of being used as residence. The fact that the assessee did not actually use the same for his residence will not disentitle him to the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the exemption under section 54F deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that the same should be allowed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 460 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment - Additions to income ... ... ... ... ..... depreciation has also been claimed on the machinery. However, on being asked Shri Gulab Singh Sihag (HUF) failed to submit and documentary evidence in support of its submissions. It is also noted that no purchases bill for TMT machinery was produced either before the Assessing Officer or before us. However, no TDS was made on the rent paid of Rs. 60,000. 16. After hearing the rival contention, we are of the view that no investigation or enquiry was carried on by the Assessing Officer to establish that Shri Gulab Singh Sihag (HUF) had purchased any TMT machinery and the same was given on rent to the appellant company. In the absence of above, we set aside this issue and restore to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding this issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant company. Hence for statistical purposes, this ground of appeal is treated as allowed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
........
|
