|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1268 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nce the facts and issue for the relevant assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 are exactly identical to the facts and the issue of the case for the AY 2007-08, following our decision for the assessment year 2007-08 cited above, we hereby hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions in both the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 amounting to ₹ 27,35,460/- and ₹ 27,45,873/- respectively. Therefore, we hereby delete the additions made by the learned AO for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-2010 for ₹ 27,35,460/- and ₹ 27,45,873/- respectively by holding the expenditure incurred for the purchase of tools and instruments being top set, drill bits, end mills etc as revenue expenditure. Resultantly, both the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 are hereby allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court - 27/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1267 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rcumstances are the same, the Counsel pleaded that the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case should be followed. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the Tribunal in ITA No.1278/Mum/2009 and 4740/Mum/2008. We find that in assessment year 2004-2005, the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee based on the finding given in assessee’s own case in ITA No.294/Mum/1997 for assessment year 1992-93. As no distinguishing facts having been brought on record for the year under consideration, respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No.1278/Mum/2009 and ITA No.4740/Mum/2008, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition of ₹ 26,44,155 on account of club membership and other fee. Ground no.4 is accordingly dismissed. 8. Grounds no.6 and 7 require no adjudication being general in nature. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on the 26th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1266 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rdered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 13. As the facts and circumstances are the same, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements cited hereinabove, ground no.7 is dismissed. 14. Ground no.8 relates to the grievance that the CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to consider the revised deduction u/s 80HHC for computing book profit u/s 115JA. It is the say of the Counsel that the CIT(A)’s direction for revising the deduction u/s 80HHC have been challenged in the aforementioned grounds of appeal. Therefore, the issues raised vide ground no.8 are consequential to the findings in the other grounds of appeal. As we have dismissed all the other grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue, we agree with the submission of the Counsel that ground no.8 is consequential and accordingly confirm the finding of the CIT(A). 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on the 26th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1264 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... (HUF) ₹ 2,00,000/-, Shri Rajiv Kumar (HUF) ₹ 1,50,000/- and Smt. Suman Agarwal ₹ 1,25,000/- are required to be confirmed. Because the assessee has filed to produce sufficient evidence in support of credit worthiness of creditors. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the order of A.O in respect of additions in respect of these creditors. In the light of the fact, addition to the extent of ₹ 5,75,000/- is confirmed. However, the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/- on account of Smt. Priyanka Gupta ₹ 70,000/-, Smt. Akansha Gupta ₹ 1,20,000/- and Shri Narayan Das & Sons ₹ 60,000/- have been rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as there sufficient funds were available in bank accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- is upheld. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1262 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unt of ₹ 3.5 crores through their accounts maintained in Allahabad Bank, United Bank of India and Punjab National Bank had recorded the finding. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the CIT (Appeal) by observing that the payment was made through different bank accounts and the land in question was purchased through the open auction by the High Court of Bombay and the amount was paid by M/s. Zoom Developers Private Limited on behalf of the assessee. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The findings recorded by the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal are pure findings of fact based upon appreciation of material available on record. We find no question of law being involved in the matter. The appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No other point urged.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - Assessee had taken loan from few firms which were not found genuine by AO as those firms were allegedly involved in providing bogus entries. - HELD THAT: - Merely because there was a search in aforementioned companies, no inference regarding giving of bogus entries could be drawn. - During search, there is no admission by the assessee therein that they were involved giving bogus/accommodation entries - Findings recorded by the AO is not correct and can not be relied upon.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1260 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d that it has not incurred any personal expenditure. Considering the nature of expenses, the personal use cannot be ruled out. He thus supported the order of A.O. 14. On the other hand Ld. A.R. relied on the order of CIT (A). 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the disallowance was made by the A.O. on an adhoc basis without pointing out any specific instances of expenses being personal in nature. Considering the totality of facts and the written submissions CIT (A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 75,000/-. Before us nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the expenses incurred consisted of expenses which ares personal in nature. In view of these facts we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT (A) and thus we uphold the order of the CIT (A). Thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on - - 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1259 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le transactions of shares having regard to the relevant provisions contained in the Depositary Act. The Tribunal had held that the transactions made through Demat account is in itself an evidence to prove the genuineness of share transaction and merely because the sale of shares fetched a handsome price which price is supported by publication in leading newspapers, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the material on record and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. What was the circumstances under which the assessee had surrendered on account of undisclosed income of the business during the course of survey is not before us either in the memo of appeal or otherwise, therefore, this plea cannot be taken into consideration at all. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1258 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and physical possession of shares of the assessee. demat account held by the assessee and the fact of sale of shares to demat account, receipt of sale price, the purchases having made through registered Stock Broker of Stock Exchange, Calcutta, therefore was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. Simply because there was some variation in dates of purchase and sales as per contract notes and as per stock holding statements or that the party to whom the broker had sold the shares was not available at the given address or that there were deposits in bank account of the broker, just before the payments were made to the assessee may have given an opportunity to the revenue authorities to raise a suspicion but that alone was not sufficient to term the transaction as ingenuine. We are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity.as the transaction have been found genuine. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1257 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 - Assessee firm took loan from a company that was engaged in providing accommodation entries, thus AO added the aforesaid loan amount in question by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the Act. - HELD THAT:- Lenders were regular income tax assessee and their PANs are on record. The amount had been advanced through Account Payee Cheques. Before issuing the cheques, they had got the balance in their accounts and the amount has also been repaid through Account Payee Cheques, thus the identity, credit, worthiness etc. of the lenders have been disclosed, therefore addition deleted.
Revenue Appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1256 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... attended and requested for adjournment but it was refused. From the order of CIT (A), we also find that the CIT (A) has not dealt with the issue that on what ground the adjournment was sought while rejecting the assessee’s adjournment application. After looking to the facts of the case, we find it appropriate and in the interest of justice to restore the issue to the file of CIT (A) for deciding afresh after providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and submit the necessary details before the CIT (A). 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 6th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1255 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the valuation of closing stock on cost price or net realizable value is an accepted method and, therefore, CIT(A) has rightly rejected the view taken by the AO that the stock cannot be valued at net realizable value. However, net realizable value has to be adopted after giving a proper basis. In the present case, the assessee has made valuation of net realizable value on the basis of experience in the market. The net realizable value shown by the assessee at ₹ 1,06,800 is quite reasonable as in the return for the immediate succeeding year, the value of the same stock has been shown by the assessee at nil which remains accepted as there is no addition made by the department to the returned income filed in the next year. In view of this position, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO and the same, is, therefore, upheld . 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9.11.2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1253 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... set off of brought forward business laws. As we have already held that the business has been set up in financial year 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is eligible for set off of brought forward business laws as income from sublease of land has been directed to be treated under the head of profit and gains of business or profession. This ground of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. The next ground relates to the allowability of depreciation u/s. 32(2) of the Act. This ground is also related to the findings of the aforesaid grounds. As we have held that the income from sublease of land is to be treated as business income, therefore, the assessee is entitled for claim of depreciation and set off of unabsorbed depreciation. This ground of the appeal is also dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd November, 2012 .
-
2012 (11) TMI 1252 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ion of section 44AD wherever the total contract receipts exceed ₹ 40 lakhs, with effect from 01/04/2011 such restriction was removed by the Legislature. Moreover, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in M. Bhaskar Reddy Vs. ITO, ITA No. 168/Hyd/06 dated 10/10/2007 after taking a clue from section 44AD estimated the profit at 8% of the contract receipt. Therefore, by taking a clue from the provision of section 44AD as is applicable for the assessment year under consideration and the provisions which would come into operation with effect from 01/04/2011, in our opinion, the payment of interest and salary to the partner shall be allowed subject to limitation specified in section 40(b) of the Act from estimated income." 11. Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Easwar Reddy (supra), we dismiss the revenue's appeal on this issue. 12. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 05/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1250 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ose of business as condition for allowability of expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and thus lays more strict requirement u/s.37(1) of the Act as distinguished from Sec.28 to 36 of the Income Tax Act? 2) The Tribunal by referring the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sasson J. David & Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 188 ITR 261 recorded a finding of fact in Para 7 of its order that so long as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning any extra income or profession, merely because some of these expenses were incurred voluntarily i. e. without there being any legal or contractual obligation to incur the same, the said expenses do not cease to be deductible expenses. The fact that the said expenses were incurred by the assessee is not in dispute. 3) In this view of the matter, in our opinion, decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of facts. No question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1247 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Del) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Media Circle II, Chennai vs. Real Image Media Technologies (P) Ltd., (2008) 114 ITD 573 (Chennai) 9. On the other hand, Ld. D.R relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. It is the contention of Ld. AR that the disallowed amount has not been debited to P&L Account and service tax has also not become payable as the payment for services rendered was not realized. In order to verify all these contentions, we consider it just and proper to restore this issue to the file of AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same as per law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. We direct accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of Nov. 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ; 3. The test of enduring benefit enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above cited case as no application to the facts of the case in hand. The expenditure incurred is dominantly for advertisement to promote the sales. If the contention of the Revenue is upheld, any expenditure incurred for marketing and promoting sales should have to be held as 'capital expenditure' and in no case, the deduction can be allowed. Such a contention is illogical and untenable. In the cited case, the compensation was paid during the whole period of lease as protection fees in consideration of which the lessor undertook not to grant any lease, permit or prospecting licence for limestone for the manufacture of cement, in a group of quarries. The said payment of protection fee was held to be a capital expenditure. In the instant case, the facts stand on a different footing. In that view, the substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1245 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ase for assessment year 2008-2009. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed from the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) directed to restrict the disallowance at 25 of the total expenses by relying on the Tribunal order passed in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-2009, a copy of which is available on page 1 onwards of the paper book. In such order the Tribunal has followed its another order passed in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 1998-99, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The learned Departmental Representative could not place on record any material to indicate that the said orders of the Tribunal have either been reversed or modified in any manner by the Hon’ble High Court. Respectfully following the precedents, we uphold the impugned orders for all the years under consideration. 4. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1244 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... cord and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench as extracted hereinabove in the assessee’s own case, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remitted back to the file of the AO for verifying the nature of expenditure claimed under the head ‘repairs and maintenance’. If the nature of expenditure claim under the head ‘repairs and maintenance’ for the assessment year under dispute are found to be the same which was considered by the ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and allowed as revenue expenditure, then the AO should also allow the same as revenue expenditure for the impugned assessment year. The AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finally deciding the appeal after following our aforesaid direction. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 07-11-2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Benefits under Section 11 - Held that:- The assessee claimed exemption, being an educational institution as such it was required to obtain exemption from the prescribed authority under Section 10(23C) of the Act, which is mandatory. Since no exemption from the prescribed authority under Section 10(23C) of the Act has been obtained as such the assessee was not entitled to claim benefits under Section 11 of the Act. The submission is wholly misconceived.
Admittedly, the assessee is an educational institution and was established for charitable purposes for running educational institutions and imparting education. Section 10 of the Act deals with the income not liable to be included in total income of the assessee while Section 11 deals with the income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. Both Section 10(23C) and Section 11 of the Act are independent sections. The assessee was registered under Section 12A of the Act. As such the assessee was rightly granted benefits under Section 11 of the Act.
........
|
