|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 6492 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1569 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Short term capital gain - applicability of provisions of Section 2(47)(v) - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal upon basis of the factual material placed before it and upon interpretation of the agreement entered between the assessee and the developer has found that the assessee was liable to pay capital gain in the year 2008-09, inasmuch as there was no possession handed over to the developer under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in the assessment year 2003-04. It can thus be seen that finding recorded are upon appreciation of material led before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal and upon consideration of the documents placed for its consideration. The said question therefore cannot be said to be a question of law, leave aside, the substantial question of law.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1568 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Treatment to the rental income as ‘Income from House Property’ - there is no element of any organized set of activities carried out by the assessee during the year and the only rental income is being received from the property.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1567 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Addition U/s 14A - Held that:- The burden is on the assessee to submit the details of volume of transactions in relation to activity regarding dividend income and other activities from which the assessee has earned taxable income and then the Assessing Officer should work out the amount of disallowance in the ratio of such transactions undertaken by the assessee for earning dividend income and other transactions resulting into taxable income. The Assessing Officer should pass necessary order as per law as per above discussion after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 of Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Addition on purchased/received the vehicle - Held that:- If the assessee establishes this fact that the assessee received the delivery of the vehicle on 31/03/2007 and got it registered in his name on the first day of the next year then the assessee is eligible for depreciation even if the same was registered in the next year but since this fact is not verifiable from the record and no finding is available, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. We would like to make it clear that the burden is on the assessee to furnish the proof of delivery of vehicle on 31/03/2007 and thereafter, the Assessing Officer should pass necessary order as per law. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1566 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Proceedings under s.153C - Held that:- Assessing officer having issued a notice u/s 153A of the Act, could not have completed proceedings which are supposed to be done u/s 153C of the Act if there is any incriminating material and accordingly, the proceedings itself become bad in law.
Computation of income - Held that:- Estimation of income at 9.5% by the CIT(A) is on higher side. Considering the past record of the assessee, we are of the opinion that it is reasonable to estimate 5% income net of depreciation on sub-contract payments and 8% net of depreciation on the balance of the contract receipts, out of the total turnover shown by the assessee. This should meet the end of justice on the facts of the case. However, other incomes offered by the assessee, with reference to undisclosed income being added in A.Y. 2009-10 and other incomes not connected with the contract receipts should be accepted as such. This estimation of 8% on assessee’s contract works and 5% on sub-contract works is only limited to the contract receipts. With these directions, the assessing officer is directed to modify the computation of income accordingly. Assessee’s grounds are considered allowed accordingly.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1564 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- There was true disclosure of all material and primary facts at the time of original assessment and assessment was reopened in respect of the matter already covered by the disclosure made by the assessee during original assessment proceedings and initiation of reassessment proceedings on the same material would obviously amount to change of opinion. Consequently, we hold that the initiation of reassessment, in absence of any new tangible material was change of opinion which is not permissible as per statutory provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the act of the Assessing Officer in initiation of reassessment proceedings and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is quashed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1562 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction under Section 80IB of the Act is allowable for the income from sale of scrap - The receipts from sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1559 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Delay in deposit of Employees contributions of Provident Fund - Held that:- EPF was paid before the due date of filing the return. Thus we direct the A.O. to allow the payment of EPF contributions since the same has been paid before the due date of filing the return.
Claim of deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- As the assessee has supplied DG sets to the customers which includes installation, testing and commissioning, which is intricate and inseparable part of manufacturing activity and therefore, any surplus arising therefrom shall be termed as derived from an industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80IB
Violation of provisions of section 40A(3) - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that the rent has been paid in cash in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the action of the AO in disallowing the same. It is also fact that the disallowance of sum claimed enhances the income of the assessee and the income so enhanced is available u/s 80IB of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not allowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1557 - ITAT DELHI
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the CIT’s impugned order u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1555 - ITAT DELHI
Nature of receipts - Held that:- Nature of receipt in this case if ₹ 5.75 crore has clearly been established as being the capital receipt. The provision of Income Tax Act does not provide for taxation of such capital receipt, even if it is forfeiture of amount. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same.
Depreciation @ 60% on the printers and UPS & computer peripherals to the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1554 - ITAT PANAJI
Value adopted by the Assessee for part of the stock in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court - Held that:- Even the stock of iron ore at that time was also divided. The liability arising due to the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in our opinion, cannot be a business liability as the price realized by the Assessee can also not be the market price but the price put by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court is for the purpose of settling the dispute mutually among the family members and distribute the various assets and liabilities by putting certain value to them. It cannot be regarded to be sale at the open market. If any loss is incurred by the Assessee, that cannot be regarded to have been incurred during the course of the business.
Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to revalue the opening stock also consistently along with the closing stock when the assessee wanted to adopt the “works cost” method for the relevant assessment year.
Direction to be given to the assessing officer to take the opening stock of ROM and screened fines for the assessment year 2007-08 in consequence of making an adjustment to the closing stock as on 31.3.2006 - Held that:- Value of the closing stock of the impugned assessment year will become the value of the opening stock of the succeeding assessment year. Since the appeal before us relate to the assessment year 2006-07 our jurisdiction are limited to give the finding in respect of the ground of appeal relating to the impugned assessment year we cannot decide the grievance of the assessee relating to the assessment year 2007-08. This issue can be taken by the assessee during the assessment year 2007-08 in accordance with the law before the appropriate authorities.
As we have already confirmed the addition in the valuation of the closing stock for the A.Y 2006-07, we direct the assessing officer to take the same value of the opening stock as on 1.4.2006 for determining the profits and gains of the business of the assessee for computing the taxable income.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1553 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) - surrender was conditional subject to no penalty and therefore this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1552 - ITAT PUNE
Addition to capital gain declared by disallowing expenses for transfer - Disallowance of the expenditure related to the land sold - Held that:- The payments were made by bank cheques and the fact that the said deeds and confirmation letters were filed the contention of the assessee stands proved even in the absence of affidavits of the payees filed at the appellate stage. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition
Assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s.54B
-
2013 (12) TMI 1550 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake - Income considered to be liable for tax - Held that:- Income was considered to be liable for tax at the rate of 15% by the assessee itself in its return of income. No material has been brought on record to show that applicability of rate of 15% was examined by the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings. Even during the course of rectification proceedings, the assessee did not submit any reply to the AO. It is also not the case of the assessee that AO did not give opportunity to explain that as to why 15% rate of tax was justified. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no “change of opinion” as has been argued by Ld. AR. The levy rate of tax has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions. If there is less levy, then it is liable for rectification.
Accordingly, we hold that AO was not wrong in exercising his right u/s. 154 of the Act.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1549 - ITAT PUNE
Land in question was liable to be excluded from the definition of ‘capital assets’ on account of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the surplus on the sale of such asset has been rightly held to be outside the purview of capital gains tax.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1548 - ITAT INDORE
No merit in the conclusion drawn by the lower authorities for treating the gains arising out of sale of shares as business income rather than capital gain.
Addition u/s 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend - Held that:- We found that Shri Anoop Karwa has more than 10 % voting rights in the share capital of Krishi Dham Seeds Limited, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is clearly applicable for loans and advances so taken by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2(22)(e) was perfectly justified.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1547 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Registration u/s.12AA denied - Held that:- The assessee did not furnish the trust-deed/memorandum of article/memorandum of association, whereby the objects and notifications can be ascertained. On the contrary, the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that the trust is registered under Gujarat Private University Act and as per the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 11/04/2012, it is mentioned the trust registration No.5539 dated 01/08/1996. After hearing the rival submissions and the documents filed by the assessee during the course of hearing, it would be appropriate if the matter is restored back to the file of ld.DIT(E) for fresh decision. The order of ld.DIT(E) is hereby set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of DIT(E) for fresh decision. The DIT(E) is directed to consider the documents as filed by the assessee, i.e. deed of trust and decide this issue in the light of various case-laws relied upon by the ld.counsel for the assessee. The assessee shall furnish all the required details in support of its contention before the ld.DIT(E). Thus, grounds of assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1546 - ITAT PUNE
Estimation of accrued interest on NPAs - Held that:- Assessee was justified in contending for amortization of premium paid in excess of face value of securities held to maturity (HTM) category or period remaining till maturity was found reasonable by the CIT(A). Accordingly addition made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing amount towards amortization of Government Securities (HMT) was deleted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1545 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalties under Sections 271-D and 271-E - Held that:- It appears that in the instant case, the transaction in question, was not cash transaction. It was merely book entries.When that it so, then there is no violation of Section 269SS/269T of the Act. No addition is made in quantum appeal.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1544 - ITAT KOLKATA
Whether the reserve and surplus of the amalgamated company can be treated as benefits accruing from business of the assessee in term of provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act or not? - Held that:- In the present case there is no material whatsoever before us to indicate that the benefit, even if accruing to the assessee, on account of amalgamation by way of merger as not in revenue field, and not of an income nature.
Accordingly, there was no occasion to invoke Section 28(iv) of the Act.
According to us, CIT(A) was quite justified in his observations that “the amalgamation is not an adventure in the nature of trade” and that “this transaction is clearly a capital account transaction” and he was justified in deleting the addition. We uphold his order and dismiss the appeal of revenue.In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1542 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Exemption under Section 11 - Held that:- The assessee-trust has not proved its case for seeking exemption under Section 11 of the Act by producing any details of expenditure incurred by the assessee-trust on various activities undertaken to achieve its objects before the Revenue Authorities as well as before us till the closing of hearing of the present appeals. Therefore, we hold that the learned First Appellate Authority has wrongly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 30.12.2008 by passing the impugned order, which deserves to be cancelled and accordingly we cancel the impugned order dated 25.09.2009 passed by learned CIT(A), Jalandhar, by holding that the construction of building of the medical institute for a long period, leaving behind the main object of the assesseetrust, does not qualify the assessee-trust for exemption under Section 11 of the Act and the same has rightly been brought to tax by the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of the Act by making the additions of ₹ 1,72,80,372/- on account of interest income; ₹ 36,282/- for other receipts; and ₹ 25 crore as capital receipts for the year under consideration. - Decided in favour of revenue.
........
|
