|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1182 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner from Respondent No.4 cannot be proceeded against for default of respondent No.5. Issue notice to respondent No.4. Dasti service is also permitted. List again on 24.04.2013, as prayed. 2. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are inter connected entities. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition but seeks liberty to establish its rights in appropriate civil proceedings. We do not see any objection to this course being adopted in accordance with law. 3. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1179 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... pportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) for affording a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against enhancement to the assessee. If he fails to afford an opportunity to the assessee, enhancement made by him is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the light of these facts, enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable as it was done without issuing a show cause against enhancement to the assessee. We, therefore, find no merit in the additions. Accordingly, we delete the same. 5. The other grounds raised with regard to the furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, are totally irrelevant at this stage as it can only be considered while dealing with the issue of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find no merit in these grounds and reject the same. 6. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.8.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1178 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The ITAT came to a finding of fact that Assessing Officer has taken a possible view in the matter and there is nothing to indicate that the Assessing Officer has applied the provisions on an incorrect way. Since the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, the Principal CIT has assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without properly complying with the mandate of Section 263 of the Act. The ITAT held that the Principal CIT has failed to show that the Assessment Order was erroneous, causing prejudice to the Revenue. This finding of the ITAT that the Principal CIT could not have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act has not been even challenged. Since that has not been challenged, we do not think it permissible to go into the merits of the case as decided by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in our view, no substantial questions of law arises. 7 Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1173 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... was discriminatory and not in accordance with law. Reference was made to non-discrimination clause in the Treaty, as per which there should not be any discrimination between the domestic and the non-resident company. The Tribunal, however, referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04- 1962 as per which the higher tax rate in case of foreign company, should not be regarded as violation of non-discrimination clause. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. J.K. Synthetics. The Tribunal accordingly, rejected the ground raised by the assessee. The facts in the present appeal are identical and, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s BNP Paribas(supra), we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. 5. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of Aug,2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1172 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of CIT(A) and the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice shall be met by restricting the disallowance made by the AO to Rs.5 lacs instead of Rs.40 lacs made by the AO. We thus direct accordingly. Thus this ground of Revenue is partly allowed. ITA No 2029/Ahd/2012 (AY 2009-10) 7. In asstt.year 2009-2010, assessee had paid total commission of rs.49,67,708/- and AO considered Rs.12 lacs as reasonable and accordingly had disallowed Rs.37,67,708/- considering it to be excessive. Since the facts in the present year are identical to that of AY 2008-09 as admitted by both the parties, we, for similar reasons stated hereinabove for AY 2008-09 restrict the disallowance in the present case to Rs.4.50 lacs instead of Rs.37,67,708/- made by the AO. We thus direct accordingly. Thus this ground of Revenue is partly allowed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1171 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cord brought by the assessing officer to suggest that any money over and above what is recorded in sale deed has been paid by the assessee. There is no other evidence or surrounding circumstances to indicate that there was under hand payment of money for purchase of the properties. The addition cannot be made merely on the basis of valuation report. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition.” 12. We find that in identical situation in the case of co-owner the tribunal has held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis and following the ITATs order in the case of co-owner Smt. Pratibha Aggarwal Supra we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CITA on this issue. Hence, the uphold the same. 13. In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 8 August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1170 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 8) 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and also gone through the orders of authorities below as well as Tribunal order. We find that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, while relying on various case law on different structures, submitted that the assessee has already carried the matter in appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the same is admitted. However, no orders of any higher court have been placed on record to take a different view. In view of the above, we respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case dismiss the grounds raised by both assessee and Revenue. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 20th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1168 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... eption Locked false Priority 31 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Subtle Reference /> <w LsdException Locked false Priority 32 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Intense Reference /> <w LsdException Locked false Priority 33 SemiHidden false UnhideWhenUsed false QFormat true Name Book Title /> / Style Definitions / table.MsoNormalTable mso-style-name Table Normal ; mso-tstyle-rowband-size 0; mso-tstyle-colband-size 0; mso-style-noshow yes; mso-style-priority 99; mso-style-parent ; mso-padding-alt 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top 0in; mso-para-margin-right 0in; mso-para-margin-bottom 10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left 0in; line-height 115%; mso-pagination widow-orphan; font-size 11.0pt; font-family Calibri , sans-serif ; mso-ascii-font-family Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family Times New Roman ; mso-bidi-theme-font minor-bidi;
-
2013 (8) TMI 1166 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that interest-free loan given by the assessee-society to another society, having similar objects and registered under Section 12AA of the Act, did not violate Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of the Act, since such loans were neither investments nor deposits. No doubt, the assessee here had mentioned the amounts given to M/s SPK MAC Charitable Trust as “deposits” in its accounts. Submission of the assessee that it was nothing but a loan given to the said Trust, for the purpose of its educational objects, has not been rebutted by the Revenue. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in directing the A.O. to exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. We do not find any need to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals). 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 29th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1165 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on introducing the Compact Spinning System is Revenue in nature and is thus an allowable expenditure. 7. Since the issue in hand is similar to the one decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY. 2007-08, and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue holding the expenditure incurred by the assessee on introducing Compact Spinning System as Revenue Expenditure. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 13. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we reject the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 15. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 29th day of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1162 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e both in respect of the opening introduction of cash in hand and various transactions of cash deposits and withdrawals during the year under consideration. In order to verify the claim of the assessee and to determine the quantum of addition, we restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to first determine the deposit of cash at the start of the year and in case the same is not relatable to cash withdrawn during the year before that date, then such amount is to be included as income of the assessee. Further, the peak theory is to be applied to the various entries of cash deposit and withdrawal during the year under consideration in order to determine the addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of peak theory. In view thereof, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 20th day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1158 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1 to 8, though quantum may differ, therefore, on similar lines, similar reasons, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 8222/M/2010 for assessment year 2006-2007 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010 - A.Y. 2006-07 89. Before closing, we find that the assessee has filed another appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 which has been given ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010. This is a repetitive appeal, already considered in ITA No. 8222/M/2010, by virtue of which ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010 becomes otiose. 90. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2393/M/09 for A.Y. 2004-05 and ITA No. 5596/M/2011 for A.Y. 2005- 06 is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 3098/M/09 for A.Y. 2004-05 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 8222/M/10 for A.Y. 2006-07 is allowed for statistical purpose. Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.8.2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1155 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... payable to the petitioner at 1% of the sum under S. 194IA of the Act since the total sale consideration exceeds ₹ 50 lakhs. The obligation to deduct tax under S. 194IA of the Act arises when consideration is payable to a resident transferor on the transfer of immovable property otherwise than by land acquisition. It is upto the petitioner to submit his return before the jurisdictional assessing officer and take the proceedings to a logical end in the determination of his tax liability. The dictum in Infopark Kerala's case as affirmed in W.A. No. 2243 of 2008 is clearly distinguishable in as much as the same dealt with the deduction of tax under S. 194IA of the Act in the absence of a compulsory acquisition. The District Collector and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) are therefore directed to disburse the sale consideration to the petitioner after deducting income tax at 1% of the sum under S. 194IA of the Act. The Writ Petition is allowed in part. No costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1153 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... cord and the orders of the authorities below. The fact is that there were transactions in Mutual Funds which are out of the purview of the transactions effected in shares. This fact is not controverted by the ld. DR. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case. The authorities below ought to have applied their mind on the facts of the case as non-consideration of the transaction being transactions in Mutual Funds exfacie depicts the non-application of mind. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and decide this issue afresh by allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Order pronounced in the open Court immediately after conclusion of hearing on 21-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1151 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... h; and after considering similar arguments from both sides, the Bench has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of the entire issue afresh. A copy of that order passed in I.T.A.No. 1800/Mds/2008 dated 30.6.2010 for assessment year 2004-05 has been produced for our perusal. 3. Both the parties have relied on this decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, by respectfully following the above order, we restore the entire issue involved in the years under consideration to the file of the Assessing Officer in a similar manner with a direction that he shall consider all the issues, de novo, commensurate with his decision taken in assessment year 2004-05. Needless to mention that he shall give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-09-2011.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1149 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... m for depreciation of ₹ 1,81,174/-. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has claimed depreciation against the property which is let out. According to the Assessing Officer, the income from rent is chargeable under the head ‘income from house property’ therefore, the assessee cannot claim depreciation against the same property. 13. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 14. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that as the assessee has shown rental income throughout the year from house property, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of deduction of depreciation against such income to the assessee was in order. We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 05th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1148 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ue in controversy is whether the donations given by the assessee trust to another charitable trust is an application of income within the meaning of Sec. 11 of the Act. So far as an application of the income is concerned which is in respect of donations given by the assessee trust to another charitable trust the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustees of the Jadi Trust (supra). Moreover, as per the instruction no. 1132, dated 05-01-2007 issued by the CBDT nowhere it is made mandatory that there should be specific objects in the trust deed. It is sufficient that the donations are given to the donee trust for applying the donation for the charitable purpose for which the donor trust is settled. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, same is confirmed. 5. In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 26-08-2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1147 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d by the assessee is situated in OMR, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has also without examining the property, where the Assessing Officer has given a specific finding that the assessee is buying and selling the property frequently and without mentioning any detail of the property sold by the wife of the assessee and assigning complete detail of the ITAT order directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. In view of the above and in the absence of any clear facts and findings of lower authorities, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine all the details as stated above including the land sold by wife of the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Friday, the 30th of August, 2013 at Chennai
-
2013 (8) TMI 1145 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... A No. 2426/Mum/2010 dated 22nd February, 2012, deleted these additions. Consequently the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the learned CIT(A). 3. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the premise that the additions, which formed the bedrock of the penalty, no more stand in view of their deletion by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings has been reversed or modified by the Hon’ble High Court. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. 4. परिणामतः अपीलें खारिज की जाती हैं। In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1140 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... sessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled. 15. In view of the decision on the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the other issues raised by the assessee on merits do not require any consideration. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 17. The above reasoning adopted by the Tribunal will apply to the present case. In the reasons recorded, no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the relevant assessment year has been alleged. In such circumstances, we are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceeding is not valid. Accordingly, the order of reassessment is annulled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 18. In the result, ITA No.1281/Bang/2012 is allowed, while all the other three appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of August, 2013.
........
|
