|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 6492 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1710 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... blished fully, the object achieved. In such a situation, if the payment has been made, looking to necessity of settlement or difficulty of payee as the payee was in needy after bank hours, the same cannot be have to be made in violation of the objects of the rules. The unavoidable circumstances is a relative term and vary from transaction to transaction. In the present appeal also, since the accounts are tallying, genuineness of payment is not in doubt, the amount is actually deposited to the marketing staff of the company from Indore Branch of ICICI bank in core banking account of M/s. Altos Enterprises Ltd. and duly reflected in the statement of payee company, therefore, in view of these uncontroverted facts, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A). It is affirmed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the presence of ld. representatives of both sides in the open Court at the conclusion of hearing on 16.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1709 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... .R. could not contradict to this submission of the ld. Counsel of assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal in the hands of the co-owner of the property had held that the lands in quest ion did not constitute ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act because Rajarhat Municipality was not one of the notified Municipality as per the Central Government’s Notification dated 28.12.1999. Hence, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the land in question, which was transferred by the assessee, was an agricultural land and it did not fall within the ambit of ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly we confirm the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1708 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... essee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07 (supra) wherein an identical circumstances that the disallowance was directed to be restricted 50% of the expenditure claimed. Following the aforesaid precedent, in this year also the Assessing Officer is directed to retain the disallowance accordingly. Thus, on this aspect, assessee partly succeeds. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed. 20. In so far as the other two appeals relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are concerned, the issues raised are similar to those adjudicated in the above paragraphs relating to the assessment year 2008-09. Our decision in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the above two assessment years also with respect to the respective Grounds of Appeals. 21. Resultantly, the three captioned appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1706 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which it carried on business during the relevant assessment year and 25 per cent of the gross receipt is attributable to the said business. Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the Tribunal has made any effort to bring on record any evidence to justify the same. 10. That being the situation, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal as well as the assessment order in so far as the same relates to imposition of tax liability on the 25 per cent of the gross receipt upon the appellant in the circumstances mentioned above, and observe that the questions of law formulated by us, while admitting the appeal, have not, in fact, arisen on the facts and circumstances of the case, but the real question was, whether the tax liability could be fastened without establishing that the same is attributable to the tax identity or permanent establishment of the enterprise situate in India and the same, we think, is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1705 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... and copy of account of the lending party in the books of account of the assessee. The confirmed copy could not be filed because the representative of the concern could not be contacted. The assessee has now filed the confirmed copy of account of the above concern. Since many other credits have been accepted by the Assessing Officer on the basis of evidence in the shape of confirmed copy of account the credit in the account of Shree Ganesh Ispat Co is also taken to be genuine. The assessee succeeds on this ground.” 11. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted this loan because the confirmation and PAN Number was filed before him and he was satisfied that some loans have been accepted by the Assessing Officer on similar confirmations, therefore, in our opinion the issue has been correctly decided by him and there is no need to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. 12. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1704 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... luation report taking the value as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 49,34,000/- with respect to this property, the assessee’s share comes to one third i.e. ₹ 16,44,666/-. It means that the AO should have computed the LTCG after taking the fair market value of this property as on 01.04.1981 as the assessee is holding this property w.e.f. 01.10.1976 (as mentioned in the valuation report). In view of the above, we are of the view that let the AO take the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as the assessee has submitted fair market value from a registered valuer at ₹ 16,44,666/- (his one-third share) and compute the LTCG after indexing w.e.f. 01.04.1981. Accordingly, this issue of assessee’s appeal is set aside to the file of AO for recomputation of LTCG in terms of the above. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th Dec., 2013..
-
2013 (12) TMI 1702 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... siness of the undertaking. Though it does not par take tile character of a profit and gains from the sale of an article, it is the income which is derived from the consideration realized by export of articles. In view of the definition of 'Income from Profits and Gains' incorporated in Subsection (4), the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption of the said amount as contemplated under Section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit to the aforesaid amounts also. We do not find any merit in these appeals. Therefore, the first substantial question of law raised in ITA No.428/2007 is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and the first substantial question of law in ITA No.447/2007 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the second substantial question of law in both the appeals do not arise for consideration. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1701 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... only if the same survives an examination on facts, i.e., satisfies the test of s. 12AA(3) on facts. We decide accordingly. 5. As regards the assessee's stay petition, the prayer was limited to, drawing reference to the decisions in the case of ITO vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 1969 71 ITR 815 (SC) and ITO vs. Khalid Mehdi Khan 1977 110 ITR 79 (AP) qua the inherent power of an appellate authority to grant stay, to stay the demand for a period of 3 months, by which time the tribunal's order in the instant case would ensue. We having heard the appeal on merits, were disinclined to, even as observed during hearing, interfere in the matter; no case for financial hardship having been even otherwise made out. In fact, in view of our disposal of its appeal, the assessee's application becomes infructuous. Result In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and its stay petition is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on December 31, 2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1699 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... spect to deleting disallowance of ₹ 66,61,177/- out of ₹ 88,51,569/- on account of obsolete stock/stores, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence and on facts, the learned CIT(A) as well as learned ITAT have confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 25% by observing that spares of the machinery could not be having any value including scrap value and further held that 25% of the total amount should be considered as scrap value and to that extent, the disallowance should be confirmed. 9 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any question of law much less any substantial question of law arises. Under the circumstances, the present appeal qua question No.(C) also deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. 10 As stated above, the present appeal is dismissed so far as question Nos.(B) and (C) are concerned and the present Tax Appeal has already admitted to consider the question No.(A) only.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1698 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... party (AM) have held after considering the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kurung Thai Bank PCL in ITA No.3390/M/1990 dated 30.9.2010 that provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-banking-company and therefore assessee’s case is not covered by MAT provisions. In the said case, the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act was quashed. Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal on similar issue (supra), we vacate the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Act by allowing Ground No.3 of the appeal taken by assessee. 4. Since, we have vacated the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate upon the other grounds taken by assessee on the question limitation of the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1697 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... om separate undertakings, restriction contained in above provision would not be applicable - Held, yes." Following the above we decide this issue against the assessee because there is mandatory provision of Section 801A(9) which makes it clear that deduction u/s 801A has to be reduced for computing deduction under other provisions of the Act. Recently this issue has been discussed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of M/S Broadway Overseas Limited, Suranussi vs. CIT, ITA No. 234 of 2009 (O&M) dated 22.11.2013 in detail. After detailed discussion and following the decision of Coordinate Bench it was observed that deduction u/s 80HHC is to be granted only after reducing the deduction to the extent already allowed u/s 801B. Therefore, following these decisions, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 31 In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1695 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng the application of section 1414, as explained by the hon'ble court in Godrej & Boyce (supra), upholding the order by the tribunal passed following the decision in ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 169 or does the same represent an out of context reading of the said decision by the jurisdictional high court, which is therefore not germane or relevant to the issue? 6. Whether, even on facts, can it be at all said that no expenditure in relation to the dividend income stands incurred by an assessee where the shares yielding such income are held as stock-in-trade? The Id. Third Member (TM) has since, i.e., per his separate order dated27.11.2013, concurred with the view expressed by the AM vide para 12 of his order. The assessee's appeal is accordingly decided as per the majority view. 4. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on December 06, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1694 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A) in the circumstances of the case, taking due cognizance of the specific directions of the Tribunal, has correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.” 8. Hence, we dismiss the revenue’s appeals as the document found is a dumb document and the A.O. without considering the corroborative information which was available in the compact disc has added the amounts. The amounts added have already been reflected in the books of M/s. Sujana Metal Products Ltd for the respective financial years relevant to the assessment year. The seized material being not corroborated by any independent evidence, cannot be considered as a document in proof of unaccounted investment and hence, to be deleted. In the present case, a single paper which is seized A/SUIC/B6/18 is a dumb material found during the search. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. 9. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1693 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... me-tax, Rajkot-I and the orders relied upon by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee-trust. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. O.P. Jindal Global University (supra) held that at the time of granting approval for exemption u/s 80G, object of the trust is required to be examined and application of funds can be examined by Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of O.P. Jundal Global University (supra) has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Shree Govindbhai Jethalal Nathvani Charitable Trust in ITA No.402/Rjt/2013 also. Respectfully following the same, I set aside the impugned order of ld Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I and direct him to grant the approval u/s 80G(5) of the Incometax Act, 1961 to the assessee-trust. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed. This order pronounced in open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1690 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... me escaped assessment for which the reasons were recorded and only thereafter in respect of some other items of escaped income. If, however, the income, escapement of which was the foundation for recording of reasons to believe, is not assessed or reassessed in the order under section 147, then it is not mere open to the AO to independently assess any other income, which comes to his notice subsequently. 12. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) that the AO was not competent to continue with the proceedings under section 147 in this case and the assessment lacks jurisdiction and hence the same is void ab initio. Since we have allowed the jurisdictional issue in favour of the assessee, adjudicating on the merits of the case is only of academic interest. Hence, we are not dealing with the same. 13. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. This Order is pronounced in the court on 20th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1687 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 7 (Director of Income Tax International Taxation Delhi II, New Delhi versus M/s Schlumberger Asia Service Ltd.), on 24th July, 2009, whereby and under, it has been held that the payment made included the amount of custom duty payable and, accordingly, that part of the payment will not come under Section 44BB of the Income-Tax Act. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the said pronouncement and, accordingly, refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1685 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... received or accruing as a result of the transfer. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the assessing officer to refer the valuation to the DVO whether assessee objects the same before the stamp valuation authority or not. Therefore, we are of the opinion that both the assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee’s request. Respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate benches, we are of the opinion that the assessing officer has to refer the issue to the DVO and then only he can adopt the valuation under the provisions of section 50C. For this purpose, we set aside the order of the AO and CIT on this issue and restore the computation of capital gain to the file of the AO with a direction to refer the issue to the valuation officer to consider the objections raised by the assessee and adopt the fair market value accordingly. 10. The appeal considered allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 06.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1684 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e Income-tax Officer to scrutinize the reasonableness of the expenditure with reference to the criteria mentioned in the section. The Income-tax Officer is expected to exercise his judgement in a reasonable and fair manner. It should be borne in mind that the provision is meant to check evasion of tax through excessive or unreasonable payments to relatives and associate concerns and should not be applied in a manner which will cause hardship in bona fide cases. The AO has not given any finding as to how these expenses are unreasonable and excessive and how this payment has resulted into evasion of tax. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd.(supra), we direct the AO to delete the addition. Thus, grounds of assessee’s appeal are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned herein above at caption page
-
2013 (12) TMI 1680 - ITAT AHMADABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the addition made by the A.O. was purely on ad-hoc basis. The A.O. must give plausible reasons for making addition/disallowance but in that case, no cogent reasons were given by the A.O. to make such addition. The ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that under these heads, personal element of use are always found, therefore, it should be confirmed. At the outset, ld. A.R. supported the order of the CIT(A) and argued that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes u/s.37 of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) was not right by accepting the assessee’s simple reply without any evidence that there is non-business purposes as assessee’s withdrawal is also very low for household purposes and income also has been shown less. Therefore, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and allow the Revenue’s appeal. 7. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 17.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessment year and therefore, would not affect the respective rights of the parties for the other assessment years. 6. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of Chat Computers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal passed in that case and delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on account of amount received on allotment of preference share u/s 68. Ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed. 7. Ground no.2 relating to the disallowance of assessee’s claim for business loss treating the same speculation loss and ground no.3 involving the issue of charging of interest u/s 234B are not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 /12/2013
........
|
