|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2439 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 1062
... ...
... ... ..... time of hearing, the Learned Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the ITAT, the Assessing Officer vide his assessment order dated 31.01.2008, allowed the interest claim of Rs 1,39,33,952/- in favour of the assessee. The Learned CIT (A) deleted the penalty on the ground that the Assessing Officer has already allowed the claim of the assessee by order dated 31.01.2008. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The very basis for the imposition of the penalty was allowed by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the ITAT order, therefore, the very imposition of penalty cannot survive. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT (A) and we uphold the same. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court today on the 4th day of December 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1058
... ...
... ... ..... in the light of the questions which were before this Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a latter case, the Courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings. In H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India 1971 3 SCR 9 this Court cautioned It is not proper to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of the Supreme Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed. 9. The order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1052
... ...
... ... ..... o had given statement before the authorities. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Revenue has not succeeded in demolishing the defense of consistency argued by the assessee-company. The onerous responsibility cast upon the assessing authority to discredit the agreement of the sole selling agents has not been discharged. The observations of the assessing officer alleging the violation of terms and conditions of the agency agreement are not convincing. 14. In the light of the above, we find that the there is no justification even in sustaining a partial disallowance of addition of Rs.7,50,000/- against the assessee. The said addition sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted. 15. The assessee is successful in its appeal. Obviously for no further reasons, the Revenue fails in its appeal. 16. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, this 16th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1051
... ...
... ... ..... essee was entitled to a deduction equal to 30% of additional wages paid to regular workers employed by the assessee in the previous year. The deduction to the extent of Rs.18,09,043/- is 30% of additional wages paid in Assessment Year 2004-05, remaining Rs.14,37,575/- is 30% of the additional wages paid for the earlier two assessment years. But the Commissioner of Income-tax held the last two items are not allowable. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, an order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.273 & 274/Bang/2005, dt.21.12.06, for the Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 in ACIT v. M/s. Texas Instruments (India) P. Ltd., was produced before us in which the Tribunal on exactly identical issue had decided in assessee's favour. Following the same, we allow the appeal by the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 11th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1049
... ...
... ... ..... ee should obtain loans from private parties always at the bank rate. These are matters of prevailing money market conditions and creditworthiness of the parties involved. In the present case, the interest has not been paid to the parties covered by Section 40A(2)(b). The payees are outsiders. In these circumstances, the differential rate of 2% does not make out a case against the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance at Rs.1,06,971/-. 9. The sixth and last ground raised by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of 20% of expenses like vehicle and petrol expenses, telephone expenses and depreciation on scooter and pager. The amounts involved are of Rs.13,610/-, Rs.12,451/- and Rs.4,875/- respectively. We are not inclined to interfere in the above disallowances. This ground is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, this 16th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1047
... ...
... ... ..... ltural income and expenses. The allegation of ld. CIT that the A.O. has not examined the agricultural income and expenses at the time of framing the assessment under section 143(3) is not correct. The A.O. in the assessment framed under section 143(3) has accepted the agricultural expenses incurred. It is well settled law that no revision under section 263 can be done on change of opinion as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. -vs.- CIT reported in 243 ITR 83. 16. In view of the foregoing, we are convinced that the assessment framed by the A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 is hereby cancelled. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The Order pronounced in the Court on 31.12.2009
-
2009 (12) TMI 1044
... ...
... ... ..... o; Appeal would be heard on the aforesaid point and accordingly the appeal is admitted. Another point has been suggested with regard to the delay in depositing the tax amount and this delay is about one month. We think this point does not involve any question of law. It is a question of fact so far as late deposit is concerned , power is provided in the Act itself. We do not wish to formulate any point on this issue. Let usual notice be issued upon the respondent. Paper book in requisite numbers be prepared and filed one week after the Christmas vacation. Liberty to mention for enlistment in the list. All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this order on usual undertakings.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1037
... ...
... ... ..... acquired by the assessee. That merely because the deed was registered the transaction in question would not assume a different character. The lease rent was very nominal. By obtaining the land on lease the capital structure of the assessee did not undergo any change. The assessee only acquired a facility to carry on business profitably by paying nominal lease rent. (8) In light of the aforesaid findings of fact and the ratio of the Apex Court decisions, the court does not find this to be a case which warrants interference. Even the Assessing Officer has recorded that the payment was for use of land. There is no legal infirmity committed by the Tribunal.” 23. Respectfully following the above decision of Jurisdictional High Court, we hold in favour of the assessee that lease rental paid are revenue in nature and are allowable. This ground of assessee is allowed. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as stated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/12 /2009
-
2009 (12) TMI 1036
... ...
... ... ..... e in the computation of income. In our opinion, this decision is of no assistance to the department. 15. As regards the observation of learned Commissioner in regard to valuation aspect, it is evident from the assessment order that the assessing officer has duly taken into consideration the valuation as adopted by the Departmental Valuation Officer in paras 10.1 and 10.2 of his order and, therefore, it cannot be held that there is no application of mind on this issue. Learned Counsel for the Assessee has, inter alia, relied on the decision of Ahalya Trading (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that if after due deliberation of all other issues, the assessing officer does not make any addition/disallowance to the returned income, then it cannot be said that there was no application of mind by the assessing officer. We, accordingly, set aside the order of learned Commissioner and allow the appeal of the Assessee. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1035
... ...
... ... ..... specific direction to work out the taxable income in pursuance of peak credit method and to conclude the assessment, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 9.1. As regards the ground raised by the assessee on charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, we hold it to be consequential and, therefore, we dismiss this ground. 9.2. On examining the ground raised by the assessee for award of cost in prosecuting the appeal and to refund of institution fees, we are of the view that the assessee has over-stepped, looking at the conduct of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee has not come up clean with all the facts either before the assessing authority or even at this stage. Therefore, we dismiss this ground with these observations. 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1034
Interest paid on late deposit of service-tax with Government account - AO treated above amount as a penalty and disallow the same - CIT(A) held that payment made was of compensatory nature and therefore, permissible as a business deduction, thus deleted the disallowance - HELD THAT:- Following the decision in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills.[1980 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], examined the question whether interest paid on delayed payment of "cess" was a penalty. After considering relevant statutory provisions, it was held that it was compensatory and therefore, a permissible deduction. We have examined relevant provisions of section 75 and are of the view that interest paid for the delayed payment of service-tax is compensatory and has the same character as service-tax. There is no dispute that service-tax is a permissible deduction. In our opinion, the interest should also be allowed in the same manner. In the light of above discussion, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on ground No. 1.
Nature of expenditure - Enduring benefit in acquiring logo - business deduction or not? - whether by making payment in question, the assessee has acquired any enduring benefit - HELD THAT:- It is quite evident from above that Messee Dusseldorf GmbH permitted the assessee the use of logo for limited period between 24th to 27th Sept., 2003 and between 5th Dec, 2003 to 9th Dec, 2003 at trade fairs held at Hyderabad. No enduring benefit was received by the assessee. Expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business and was rightly allowed by the learned CIT(A) as a revenue deduction. We confirm his finding and dismiss the second ground of appeal also.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1033
... ...
... ... ..... s apparent that the reasons which are required to be given by the Transferring Authority on the objections raised by the assessee against the proposal of transfer should have a nexus to the proposal of transfer. The aforesaid reasons should be self explanatory. 10. However, in the present case, we find that the impugned order, Annexure P-1, ordering the transfer of assessment proceedings of the present petitioners is totally cryptic and non-speaking order and does not contain any reasons to come to the aforesaid conclusion. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of the controversy, we deem it appropriate to allow the present petition and quash the order Annexure P-1, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Indore. The Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Indore, however, would be at liberty to pass a fresh order under section 127(1) of the Act, if so desired, in accordance with law. 12. Disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1030
... ...
... ... ..... taken or accepted any loan which he may or may not repay. The amount is received rather by way of giving assistance to the person and cannot be attracted strictly as loan or advance repayable on demand. The assessee was in urgent need of money for payment of purchase consideration for agricultural land. The assessee as well as his mother, wife and uncle are basically an agriculturists and though having bank account , on the moment it was not feasible to put the money in bank account, then to obtain cheques and then again after clearing such cheques to withdraw from bank account for further payments for purchase of agricultural land. In such circumstances if the assessee acted bonafide, it will amount to a reasonable cause within a meaning of 273B of the act was as to absolve the assessee from clutches of penal provision u/s 271D of the Act. We therefore confirm the order of Ld. CIT (A). 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2009
-
2009 (12) TMI 1028
... ...
... ... ..... iabilities of group companies of GHCL Group, the company, in any case, is facing trial for criminal breach of trust on the allegation that the letter dated 1st March, 2008 was not written to it by the complainant. No separate offence of cheating is, however, made out against it by making these adjustments. 21. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 27th September, 2008, to the extent it summons the petitioners Nirmal Bhanwarlal Jain, Venkataraman Rajamani, Nimish Ramesh Mehta, Nilesh Shivji Vikamsey, Kranti Sinha and Arun Kumar Purwar for the offences punishable under Sections 415/409/34/120B of IPC and further to the extent it summons the company India Infoline Ltd. under Section 415 of IPC is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate will, however, proceed with the trial against the accused India Infoline Ltd. under other Sections of IPC. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate at 10.00 am on 21st December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1026
... ...
... ... ..... astiblends India Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., decided on 16th October, 2009. 2. In view of the above, all the questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1025
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee company was on account of share application money. Once, we hold that, the order of the CIT(A) can not be sustained because there is no finding given by the CIT(A) as to how the receipt in the present case, it is receipt of share application money and not of loan as held by the AO. We, therefore, hold that in the facts of the present case, the cash of ₹ 1 crore received by the assessee company was not on account of share application money because there is no authorized share capital at the time of such receipt and even after receipt of this amount, authorized share capital was not increased till the end of this year. Hence, none of the judgments followed by AO or by CIT(A) is applicable and the penalty is leviable u/s 271D for default u/s 269SS. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the penalty order. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed. 8. Order pronounced in open court on 10.12.209 on the date of hearing itself.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1023
... ...
... ... ..... ties as also the meaning of "royalty" as per the DTAAs. Since these aspects have never been examined by the lower authorities, we are of the opinion that the claim has to be verified by the assessing officer. Therefore, while holding that the payments were only "royalty" we set aside the orders of the assessing officer and the Commissioner of IT (Appeals), and remit the issue back to the assessing officer for the limited aspect of examining its claim that it was saved from the rigour of Section 40(a)(i) on account of the relevant articles in the respective DTAAs. 20. In result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. When the assessees appeal was taken up, learned Counsel submitted that he was not pressing it due to the small quantum involved. Therefore, the assessees appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 22. To summarise, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas that of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1022
... ...
... ... ..... ns practising the profession of law whether in litigious matters or non litigious matters would be governed by the 1961 Act and the Bar Councils framed thereunder, apart from the powers of the Court to take appropriate action against advocates who are found guilty of professional misconduct. 60. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that in the facts of the present case, the RBI was not justified in granting permission to the foreign law firms to open liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973 Act. We further hold that the expressions ‘ to practise the profession of law’ in section 29 of the 1961 Act is wide enough to cover the persons practising in litigious matters as well as persons practising in non litigious matters and, therefore, to practise in non litigious matters in India, the respondent Nos.12 to 14 were bound to follow the provisions contained in the 1961 Act. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Chief Justice
-
2009 (12) TMI 1021
... ...
... ... ..... he extent such sum is credited by the assessee to employees' account in relevant fund on or before the due date. Thus unless and until such remittances are made it remains assessee's income, and even if remitted after due date, it continues to be assessee's income. However due date gets extended by the number of grace days given under the statute governing respective remittance by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Shri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. 2000 243 ITR 879 and CIT v. Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. 2006 284 ITR 621. Thus, assessee is entitled to claim deduction out of employees contribution to the extent of remittances made within the grace period mentioned in respective statutes governing such deduction. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the CIT(A) which calls for an interference. In the result, ground No. 2 of the revenue stands dismissed. 11. Thus appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1016
... ...
... ... ..... of individuals would be an object of general public utility. In view thereof, promotion of sports and games is considered to be a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, an association or institution engaged in the promotion of sports and games can claim exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961, even if it is not approved under Section 10(23) of the Act relating to exemption from tax of sports associations and institutions having their object as the promotion control, regulation and encouragement of specified sports and games. 7. In view of the above, we are inclined to agree with the learned AR that order passed by the AO is devoid of any merits and no interference is required in the order of CIT(A), the finding of which has not been controverted by the learned DR during the course of hearing before us. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 21st December, 2009.
........
|
