|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1111 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e was at ₹ 1,03,01,458/-. Therefore the argument was that the presumption could be either way as it was held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom), wherein it was held that if there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investment and at the same time the assessee had raised the loan, it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. A legal objection has also been raised by ld.AR that the CIT(A) has no power to set aside the issue back to the stage of assessment because of the amendment in section 251(1) with effect from 01/06/2001 through which the power of set aside had been withdrawn. We are in agreement with the arguments of the ld.AR and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, reverse the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and direct to delete the addition. Ground is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1110 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ble for the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed 8. As regards the issue involved in ground 3(d) relating to telescoping in computing the profits of business and profit entitled for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, this issue does not arise from the order of the A.O. because the addition in dispute has not been made by the AO in the assessment order. The Ld. counsel for the assessee also conceded the same. Therefore, the issue involved in ground 3(d) is dismissed. 8. Ground No.4 relates to charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is consequential only. The AO is directed to allow consequential relief, if any, at the time of giving effect to the order. This ground of appeal is disposed of in these terms. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1109 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in involved in this appeal of the Revenue is less than ₹ 3 lakhs, and consequently, in view of the Instruction No.3 of 2011 F. NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ , Dated 9th February, 2011 issued by the CBDT, the present appeal of the Revenue involving tax effect of less than ₹ 3-lakhs, is not maintainable. In this of the matter, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in limine. 3. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine Order pronounced in the court at the conclusion of hearing on 17.10.2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1108 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ly relating to the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. However on going through the grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A), we find that the assessee has raised the grounds relating to the disallowance of the Revenue expenditure on account of purchase of software. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee has agitated the issue before the CIT(A) but by inadvertence the same was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). However without going into the merits of the issue as to whether the said expenditure is revenue or capital in nature, as the assesee has also agreed that the issue may be considered as closed as far as the treatment given to such transaction, we deem it fit and proper to direct the AO to allow depreciation at the applicable rates to the said capital expenditure. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st Oct, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1107 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... e tax was payable on 15th Sept; 1989 and the request for adjustment having been made on 28th Aug; 1989 and reminder on 12th Sept; 1989, no interest was exigible u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee was entitled to adjustment of the said amount and no interest could be charged on that basis. Therefore, no fault could be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.” 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the interest so charged under section 234A and 234B of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.197(Asr)/2012 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1106 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Surplus arising out of the sale of share held for period of less then 30 days - business profit OR short-term capital gain - Held that:- While going through the computation of income for subsequent assessment year we find that though assessee suffered loss on sale of shares, the same has been shown as short-term capital loss and the same was carried forward to the next year instead of treating the same as business loss and taking advantage of this by way of reducing the income of that year.
The intention of the assessee is clear that he has treated investment in shares as “investment” and not for the purpose of trade. The Revenue has not brought any material to show that assessee has invested in shares for “trade”. We further find that Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of CIT(A) treating the investment of assessee in shares for more than 30 days and less than 12 months as investment in short-term asset. There is no provision under the Act to indicate that the holding period of 30 days is relevant to decide whether any transaction is made for investment or for trading. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the surplus arising out of sale of shares held for the period of less than 30 days as business income instead of short-term capital gain shown by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... equisition is made then irrespective of whether there is anything incriminating found against him in relation to other year or years or not, the assessee has to undergo the rigor of the assessment proceedings for all the six years as well as the year under search.” 5. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Since Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No.2938-2942/Ahd/2008 dated 16.01.2009 in assessee’s own case has already held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A were not sustainable in law and the same were quashed, the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the year under appeal is also hereby quashed. 6. In view of this decision, the other grounds taken by the assessee in its appeal and the grounds taken by the Revenue do not require any adjudication. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1103 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e cash in bank account from 01-07-2005 to 01-01-2007 by stating that in that period there was no agricultural income. This fact is clear from his statement recorded by the Assessing Officer, the copy of which is placed at page 39 to 43 of the assessee's compilation. Shri Khiya Ram is an existing tax payer and if the Assessing Officer was having any doubt regarding the amount deposited by him in his bank account, the same could have been added in his hands, particularly when he categorically stated that the amount was deposited in the bank account out of his agricultural income. The above facts clearly show that the assessee discharged the onus cast upon him in proving the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted. 4.0. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 12-10-2012 )
-
2012 (10) TMI 1102 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... material on record. Before us, the assessee, whose case falls u/s. 249(4)(a), abysmally failed to show any infirmity in the impugned order. Even as affirmed and clarified by the higher courts of law, to some decisions by which, reference has been made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, non-payment of admitted tax excludes the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority in admitting an appeal filed before him. In other words, non-payment of admitted tax leads to a jurisdictional infirmity in the assessee’s appeal, which admittedly persists even to date; the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee conceding to a short-fall in the payment of admitted, undisputed tax at ₹ 93 lakhs even as on date, even as it is arguable if the same would be of any moment. Under the circumstances; the law in the matter being clear, with the facts being undisputed, we uphold the impugned order. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1101 - ITAT PUNE
Difference between the payment of net present value against the future liability of credited by the assessee under the capital reserve account in its books of account - capital receipt or revenue receipt - Payment of net present value of the future liability - Whether can be classified as remission or cessation of the liability so as to attract the provision of section 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not ? - Held that:- No addition can be made. See Sulzer India Ltd case [2012 (9) TMI 1120 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Whether provision of warranty claim without its quantification and its absence of statistical data related to actual warranty expense is an allowable expenditure u/s.37(1)? - Held that:- We find the finding given by the CIT(A) that assessee has sold the products manufactured by it with warranty has not been disputed by the revenue. The further finding of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee has in the past paid warranty claim to its customers and claimed the same as expenditure on actual basis also remains uncontroverted. The observation of the learned CIT(A) that because of the introduction of AS29 the assessee changed its method of recognising expenditure on warranty claim from actual basis to accrual basis and accordingly made provision of warranty claims on the basis of past experience/records also could not be controverted by the learned DR. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) allowing the provision for warranty claim is upheld
Interest on share application money disallowed by the AO u/s.37(1) - Held that:- Interest on share application money is allowable on the principles of commercial expediency.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... g to the ld. A R, had not made any appeal (quantum) against such addition by the AO in order to buy peace with the Department. Be it as it may, in the present case, it is apparent that unless there is a cessation of liability or there is a remission of liability by the creditor, the liability subsists and, therefore, even if the entries were made to write back the expenditure, the amounts so written back cannot be added in the income of the assessee as per the provisions of s. 41(1) of the Act. The addition has been made by the AO on misconception and, thus, the penal proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this account do not stand the testimony of law as discussed in the fore-going paragraphs. o p /o p 6.6 In essence, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. o p /o p 7. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court on 26-10-2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (10) TMI 1099 - ITAT DELHI
Additions towards unexplained cash in hand - The cash book produced to explain cash balance also shows negative balance on certain dates which itself make it unreliable - The so-called withdrawals made in odd amounts through the current account and capital account on the same date also do not inspire confidence in the submissions of the assessee - assessee has failed to prove the source of cash deposit - additions confirmed - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1098 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ly income of the assessee. That aspect of the matter, however, is not really relevant for us because the Assessing Officer has already made an ad hoc disallowance 2 of total expenses, and, in the absence of complete details of such expenses, we are confirming the said disallowance. The income component from the reimbursement of expenses, howsoever token addition as it may be, has been taxed separately and we cannot increase such an addition. The case of the revenue cannot be improved at this stage. In viewed of these discussions, while we uphold the assessee’s grievance, as articulated in second ground of appeal, in principle but remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for factual verification, in the light of above observation, we reject assessee’s grievance in third ground of appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open Court today on 19th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1095 - ITAT MUMBAI
Applicability of higher rate of tax is decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of expenditure on purchase of fixed assets is also decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of bonus expense is decided in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income u/s 14A - Held that:- In principle, we hold that the disallowance of interest is called for in the current year as well. As sufficient details in this regard are not available about the amount invested in tax free bonds and its co-relation with the borrowed funds, if any, we restore the matter to the file of A.O. for computing the disallowance u/s 14A on the interest component after verification of the necessary details after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Also disallowance at 2% of exempt income for management / administrative expenses is in order
Deduction u/s 44C towards head office expenses attributable to Indian operations - Held that:- Article 7(3) does not talk of limiting the deduction of expenses incurred for the business of the permanent establishment subject to the limitations contained in the Act. While discussing this issue for assessment year 1999-2000 in the context of section 43B, we have held that the restriction contained in specific sections cannot apply in the light of the language of Article 7(3) of the DTA. In that view of the matter, the restriction contained in section 44C for allowing the head office expenditure can also not apply. Resultantly the direction given by the learned CIT(A) to modify the adjusted total income as per section 44C becomes infructuous as section 44C itself cannot apply. This ground is allowed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1094 - ITAT CHENNAI
Sale of Land - whether agricultural land or not - disallowance of pre-operative expenses - salary to staff, rent etc - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in the business of establishing holiday homes and resorts - Land purchased as a part of commercial business - no evidence on record to show that the assessee carried any agricultural activities - Cultivation of casuarina trees was only incidental - Land was not useful for carrying on any normal agricultural activities - Short-term capital gains tax has been levied - Decided against the assessee
Preoperative expenses - Held that:- Even though preoperative expenses cannot be technically considered as expenses incurred in connection with the transfer of the property - those expenses are in the nature of expenses incurred in developing and maintaining the property - thus increases the cost of land - decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1093 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Legislature for the first time allowed section 80-IB(10) deduction to housing projects having commercial user cannot be accepted.” 5) This takes care of questions No. A and D. 6) With respect to remaining questions No.B and C, we notice that the same pertain to additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69C of the Act respectively. 7) Such additions, when carried in appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), partial relief was granted. Additions to the limited extent were retained. Such order of Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the Tribunal. 8) Having perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and also that of the Commissioner (Appeals), we notice that both the issues are based on facts. When concurrently, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal both have, on appreciation of evidence on record come to the conclusion that such additions were not justified, no questions of law arise. 9) In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1092 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of ‘lack of inquiry’. CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 (203 ITR 108 (Bom) relied on.” 10. So far as the present case is concerned, in our opinion, the A.O has made the enquiry on the issue of assessment of gain on the sale of shares of the Enam Securities. The law is well settled that for exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263, two mandatory conditions must be fulfilled that (1) order must be erroneous and (2) it should also be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If it is the case of lack of enquiry, then order must be said to be erroneous but it is not so in this case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assessment order cannot be said to suffer from lack of enquiry nor it is erroneous. We, therefore, have no option but to cancel the same. Accordingly, we do so. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19th October 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1091 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a consistent view in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.862/Ahd/2009 of this order in para-4 & 5 the ground of Revenue’s appeal is also allowed for statistical purposed as indicated above. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to assessee’s CO No.67/Ahd/2009 (A.Y. 05-06) 9. The assessee has raised the ground of the CO. “1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction U/s 80-I(10) to the extent of ₹ 1,39,95,590 instead of ₹ 1,37,48,745.” 10. Ld. counsel for the assessee under the instruction of the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press the CO, hence, same is treated as not pressed. 11. In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as not pressed 12. In combined result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and that of assessee’s CO is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1090 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153A - Deduction u/s 80IA and 80IB - Held that:- Instead of complying with the requirements of section 153A of the Act, the A.O. proceeded with the pending assessment proceeding for the A.Y.and passed the impugned assessment order during the pendency of the assessment u/s 153A of the Act which is a nullity and as such the assessment order dtd. 27-12-2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and, hence, the same is quashed.
As regards the plea of the ld. D.R. that in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act, the A.O. has made the additions/disallowances on the basis of the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, on equitable ground, the said additions may remain to be considered as made in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act, we find that it is a settled law that where there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to undertake any exercise to read something into the provisions which the legislature in its wisdom concisely omitted. Such an exercise is undertaken by the court may amount to amending or altering statutory provisions. The courts have to decide what the law is and not what it should be.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1089 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Irrigation project - whether qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA - Held that:- the infrastructure is developed and handed over to the Government - it cannot be considered as a mere works contract but considered as a development of infrastructure facility - assessee is a developer and not a works contractor - the contracts involves development, operating, maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction and liability period - the assessee satisfied two conditions - investment in eligible projects and execution of project by itself - and hence eligible for deduction u/s 80IA - Decided in favor of assessee
............
|
