|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 2439 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 950 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aw requires to be reframed and accordingly, it is refrained as follows "Whether the AO was correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee that set off of loss and unabsorbed depreciation is to be reduced from the total income of the assessee or not ?" 12. While the similar issue having been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.K. Lingamurthy's case (supra) and the issue being no more res Integra, this substantial question of law reframed by us hereinabove requires to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, with regard to the quantification of the said entitlement, the same requires to be considered by the AO on the basis of the materials available before the AO and as such for the said limited purpose of quantifying the entitlement of set off of loss and depreciation, the matter is remitted to the AO to redo the exercise and arrive at the total taxable income. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 949 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... paid tax for certain amount of additions which should not have been considered for the respective assessment years. Therefore, even though not in the form of a formal penalty, the assessee has suffered tax which might be more than necessary. This additional suffering in the hands of the assessee has not been considered by the lower authorities in a proper perspective. They have proceeded to levy the penalty in a mechanical manner treating the penalty as an inevitable consequence of additions made in the quantum assessments. 06. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the additional injury suffered by the assessee in the quantum assessments itself, we find that it is not fair to levy penalties on the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the penalties levied for all these seven assessment years under appeal. 07. In result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 14th day of March, 2011, at Bangalore.
-
2009 (12) TMI 948 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... itled to deduction under s. 80P of the IT Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that in the case of Punjab State Co-op. Agri. Dev. Bank Ltd. (supra), the AO disallowed similar claim and the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. On this issue, the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in its order dt. 24th Sept., 2004 passed in ITA No. 435/Chd/2009 deleted the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Respectfully following the judgment of the Chandigarh Bench (supra), we allow this ground in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition in dispute. 13. As we have stated in the beginning that in the present two appeals the issue in dispute are identical, we have deleted the addition in dispute in ITA No. 419/Asr/2009. Therefore, being similar addition involved in ITA No. 418/Asr/2009 in the case of The Faridkot Primary Co-op. Agrl. Dev. Bank Ltd., Faridkot, the same is hereby deleted. 14. In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 947 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the assessee in turn had made a claim before the Central Government. When the Central Government has turned down such requests as the Interim order has to be honoured and if such amount paid pursuant to an Interim order, the department cannot contend that such payment cannot be allowed as deduction since final award is yet to be passed. 3. According to us, if any, amount is paid pursuant to an Interim order, would be subject to the final award of the Arbitration proceedings and in the Arbitration proceedings, if ultimately held that the assessee is not liable to pay any amount and the amount of ₹ 52.84 lakhs or any sum paid by the assessee has to be recovered from the Sub-contractor, the assessee is bound to brought the same into the account and therefore the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue cannot be accepted. 4. In the result, we do not see any substantial questions of law that arises in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 945 - ITAT MUMBAI
Nature of receipt/income - sales tax incentive - present scheme is the New Package Scheme of Incentives 1993 of Government of Maharashtra - denial of claim of exclusion of sales-tax incentive on the ground that it is a capital receipt - HELD THAT:- FAA has come to a factually incorrect conclusion that the assessee has brought sales-tax incentive by way of interest free unsecured loan and it had to repay the sales-tax liability after 10 years as per the repayment schedule.
In view of the discussion we hold that the issue is squarely covered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd [2003 (10) TMI 255 - ITAT BOMBAY-J] and concluded that the receipt in question is capital receipt.
Argument of the revenue that sales-tax is not separately charged in the invoices - When a consolidated amount is charged in an invoice it cannot be said that it does not contain sales-tax component. Even if a separate account has been maintained for the sales-tax collected and paid, it is not correct to say they were not in the revenue field and are not reckoned while computing profit & loss of the concern. A disclosure by the auditor that separate account has been maintained for sales-tax recovered and paid does not mean that the effect of the sales-tax has not been considered in the accounts of the assessee. It is well settled that the entries in the books of account are not determinative of the fact whether a deduction is allowable or not. Thus, this objection of the revenue is rejected.
Disallowance of depreciation by reduction of notional tax on capital gain on an exemption allowed u/s 54G from the actual cost of the plant and machinery capitalized in the said assessment orders by invoking Explanation 10 to section 43(1) and thereafter computing the written down value - assessee alternatively, aggrieved at the non reduction of the same from the cost of land and building instead of plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- Section 54G exempts from capital gain on transfer of assets, in cases where an industrial undertaking is shifted from an urban area to a non urban area subject to fulfillment of certain conditions specified in that section.
An exemption from payment of capital gains tax granted u/ 54G cannot by any stretch of imagination be called a subsidy or grant or reimbursement. Such exemption cannot be said to have been granted by the State or Central Government to meet directly or indirectly a portion of the cost or the asset. For this sole reason, the entire theory made out by the assessing officer has to be quashed as devoid of merit. We are unable to comprehend how such strange, thoughts and propositions crept into the mind of the assessing officer.
The benefit u/s 54G was admittedly given to the assessee during the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Explanation 10 to sub section 43(1) was brought into the statute only wef 01-04-1999 and even in this Explanation, in our considered opinion, there is no possibility of anybody coming to a conclusion that actual cost of the asset as accepted by the revenue in the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 have to be disturbed while doing the assessment for the assessment year 2003-04. The proposition suffice to say, is devoid of any logic. If such propositions are accepted, it will lead to a situation where any exemption granted under various provisions of the Income-tax Act for the payment of tax including depreciation, investment allowance etc. would be taken as a subsidy, grant or reimbursement and can be considered for the reduction of cost of asset.
CIT(A) exercise of his powers and setting aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication - CIT(Appeals) setting aside the matter with regard to factory power expenses, power house expenses,expenses incurred on maintenance of depot shed and non grant MAT credit brought forward from earlier years to the file of the A.O - HELD THAT:- We find that the CIT(A) has in erroneous exercise of his powers and wrongly set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication though he had no power to do so consequent to the amendment brought into the Act with effect from 01-06-2001 by Finance Act, 2001 whereby section 251(1)(a) has been amended and the words "or he may set aside" have been deleted. We also find that while the CIT(A) agrees with the submissions of the assessee, he set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication which is, in our considered opinion, not proper.
In any event, as the first appellate authority has no power to set aside the matter, we reverse his order to that extent and remit the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to furnish any additional material in support of his claims and the first appellate authority is directed to admit such material and if necessary obtain a remand report from the assessing officer and dispose of these grounds on merits.
The first appellate authority shall not be influenced by the fact that in the set aside proceedings the assessee has not been able to present himself before the AO. With these observations we dispose of grounds 5, 6 9 & 10 of the assessee.
Ad-hoc disallowance of sale promotion expenses - Addition made there would be a possibility that some of the expenses would have not been incurred - HELD THAT:- Assessee provided complete break up of all the details in the course of assessment proceedings and also an extract of the ledger account in respect of the details provided. The assessing officer has not asked for any specific detail or proof in the nature of any particular bill from the assessee during the assessment proceedings. No explanation regarding allowability or reasonableness of the expenses was asked for during the course of assessment proceedings. On this factual matrix, we hold that the adhoc disallowance is nothing but a sheer surmise and such disallowance cannot be sustained
Disallowance of repair and expenses at head office - Expenditure largely been incurred for replacement of tiles, replacement of glass windows, doors panels etc - HELD THAT:- The nature of these expenses clearly suggest that they are in the revenue field as no asset of enduring nature can be said to have come into existence by incurring of this expenditure. Thus, We find that the assessee has rightly relied upon the judgment in the case of New Shorrock Spinning & Mfg Co Ld vs IT [1956 (2) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ; Cultural Enterprises Corporation vs CIT [1992 (1) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and claimed that this expenditure has been wrongly disallowed. In the case of New Shorrock Spinning held that the test that must be applied is that as a result of the expenditure which is claimed as an expenditure for repairs, what is really being done is to preserve and manage an already existing asset. Respectfully applying these decisions to the facts of this case, we allow the ground of the assessee.
Levy of Interest u/s 234D - Section 234D was introduced with effect from 01-06-2003 and hence applicable for the assessment year 2004-05 as held in the case of ITO vs Ekta Promoters Pvt Ltd [2008 (7) TMI 452 - ITAT DELHI-E]. Respectfully following the same we allow this ground of the assessee and direct the AO not to levy interest u/s 234D.
Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C - We respectfully apply the decision in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd [2002 (2) TMI 344 - ITAT NAGPUR] and direct the AO to compute interest u/s 234C as per the income disclosed in the revised return. Coming to levy of interest u/s 234B we hold that it is consequential in nature. In the result, ground 12 is allowed in part.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part.
-
2009 (12) TMI 944 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld be made up in rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. 5. In view of the above findings, we allow the appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal and by restoring in principle the levy of interest under Section 234B(3) of the Act. However, we notice that interest is demanded under Section 234B(3) on the entire balance demand of tax raised in reassessment proceedings. Interest could be demanded under Section 234B(3) on the shortfall of advance tax paid. In other words, advance tax payable should be first determined based on reassessment and reduce therefrom actual amount of advance tax paid and interest should be demanded only on the differential amount, that too, from the date following the regular assessment till date of completion of the assessment under Section 147. If there is mistake in the calculation of interest under Section 234B(3), there will be direction to the officer to correct the same in tune with the scheme of the Section as stated above.
-
2009 (12) TMI 943 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TDS u/s 194C(1) or 194C(2) - Non deduction TDS - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee having his own trucks and is engaged in the business of transportation - assessee prays that his case be held as an independent 'contract' and not Annexure 'sub-contract' - AO held that the assessee is liable for deduction of tax under s. 194C(2) on the premise that the assessee was having agreement with the parties as a sub-contractor through whom truck were arranged for transportation of goods
HELD THAT:- Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) recorded any findings of fact that there was any oral or written agreement between the assessee and transporters for carriage of goods or there has been tripartite agreement between the assessee, M/s Priyadarsini Cements and truck owners, nor it has been proved that any sum of money regarding freight charges was paid to them in pursuance of contract for specific period, quantity or price.
In the absence of these facts, we are unable to give any findings to the applicability of the s. 1940(1). The assessee is pleading before us that s. 194C(1) is applicable without placing any documents to prove that he has entered into an agreement as a contractor with only truck owners and not as a sub-contractor and the assessee's arguments are only in air. In view of this fact, we are not in a position to uphold this argument of the assessee and the same is dismissed.
Applicability of s. 40(a)(ia) - Whether sec 40(a)(ia) applies to cases in which the hire charges are 'payable' and not applicable to the amounts which have been already paid? - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following ratio laid down in the case of Tej Constructions [2009 (10) TMI 593 - ITAT HYDERABAD] as held once the AO has observed that books of account are not reliable, how the same books can be relied for other purpose for invoking other provisions of the Act - The AO rejected the claim on the ground that according to s. 194C stipulates that the person making payment to a contractor or at the time of credit to the account has to deduct tax at source - If amount is actually paid and tax is not deducted under the above section, s. 40(a)(ia) is not applicable we are inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee on issue relating to the applicability of s. 40(a)(ia ).
Similar view has been taken in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dy.[2009 (4) TMI 489 - ITAT JAIPUR-A]. Further, the judgment relied by the Departmental Representative are relating to the upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions of s. 40(a)(ia ) and not relating to the applicability of s, 40(a)( ia).
In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 942 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... notice issued to the creditors were returned with the endorsement that no such person exists. In answer to this, counsel for the assessee contended that even though notices were dishonoured by them, in the next year, all of them were made the payment and the Department allowed that claim. Even though we uphold the contention of the Department that the burden of proof of credit by producing the parties is on the assessee as correct, in view of the contention of the assessee that in subsequent year, the very same creditors have been made payment and the Department has accepted the same, we set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority and remand the matter to the AO for consideration of the same. If in the subsequent year, the creditors are identified and payments were made by the assessee and the same was accepted by the Department, the addition made under this head i.e., ₹ 3,11,146 will be deleted. The appeal is allowed in part as stated above.
-
2009 (12) TMI 941 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a. The parties have not furnished the industry-wise loss or the history of the loss in the case of the assessee for last 4/5 years, the loss incurred during various process undertaken by the assessee, percentage of loss in each process undertaken by the assessee, comparison of such loss in different processes industrywise and various assessment year-wise in case of the assessee, other comparative instances, the reasons for incurring loss and other factors such as type of machinery used, claim of manufacturer of machines as to the amount of loss likely to occur when work is done on their machines. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for examining it afresh. As a result, this ground of Revenue is allowed but for statistical purpose. 14 Ground Nos.5 and 6 are general in nature and they do not require any adjudication. 15 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-12-2009
-
2009 (12) TMI 939 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e above, it follows that the provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1988 with effect from 1.4.1999 are not applicable to the present case. The assessee has not acquired any intangible asset on or after 1.4.1998 so that only depreciation will be allowed on the same and not the expenditure incurred in acquiring them. The expenditure was incurred by the assessee in the revenue field and not in the capital field, nor did the assessee acquire any asset, tangible or intangible, by incurring the expenditure on advertisement and sales promotion. 12. For the above reasons we hold, concurring with the orders of the CIT(A), that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement and sales promotion for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2001-02 is allowable as revenue expenditure. We uphold the orders of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue with no order as to costs. Order pronounced on this 31st day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 938 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rcial expediency would be applicable to Section 57 (iii) as well as it applies to Section 37(1) as held by Supreme Court in Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 20 ITR 1. In case it is found that the business had only been suspended in that particular year and had not been closed down, then the aforesaid expenditure would be allowable as business expenditure. In such a case in the absence of any income under the head 'business income' it could be treated as business loss and the assessee was entitled to set off of this business loss against the income from other sources as provided under Section 71 of the Act. 10. Since such an exercise has not been done by the Assessing Officer or the other authorities, we set aside the impugned orders by answering the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the matter in the aforesaid perspective and pass fresh assessment orders.
-
2009 (12) TMI 937 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he same income again. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 2,19,03,394. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 37. After hearing the learned DR and on perusal of orders of the authorities below, we find the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 1999-2000 on this issue has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 38. In the result, I.T.A. No. 3568/Mum/2006 by the assessee is dismissed, I.T.A. No. 3483/Mum/06 by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and I.T.A. No. 4396/Mum/06 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18th December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 935 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Income-tax Act provides for computation of total taxable income and levy of tax on that income. Therefore, the Revenue cannot take advantage of the technicality of limitation in collecting tax form the citizen which is not otherwise due. Therefore, in our opinion, in view of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Surya Traders (supra), the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (A) needs to be condoned and the appeal of the assessee has to be considered on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and condone the delay of 355 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (A). Now, the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) stands restored on the file of the CIT (A). We direct the CIT (A) to consider the appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 18-12-09.
-
2009 (12) TMI 933 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... otal income. In fact, the procedure to be followed for the purpose of granting deduction under section 80-IA is to first compute the profits and gains of the eligible unit and then to determine the eligible deduction therefrom in terms of section 80-IA(5) of the Act. Thereafter, in the computation of total income under the provisions of the Act, the eligible deduction has to be reduced and if the total income computed is less than the eligible amount, deduction has to be limited to such amount. Since there has been variations in the total income computed by virtue of disallowances and later orders of the higher authorities allowing it, we direct the officer to rework total income and therefrom allow eligible deduction under section 80-IA(5) of the Act with reference to the profits of the eligible unit, but limiting it to the total income, if the claim amount is higher than such amount. The orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority will stand modified as above.
-
2009 (12) TMI 932 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e inasmuch as the ?cumulative unabsorbed depreciation brought forward as on 1st April, 1997 can still be set off against taxable business profits or income under any other head for the assessment year 1997-98 and seven subsequent assessment years. It is not only the view of the Tribunal but we find that even Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S and S Power Switchgear Limited, 218 CTR 701 has interpreted the said provision in the same manner relying upon the aforesaid speech of the Minister. From perusal of the bare provision, we also find that it is possible to construe the said provision in the manner decided by the Madras High Court as well as the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the speech of the Minister while introducing the proposed amendment which verified the intentions for introducing such an amendment would come to the aid of interpretation. We, thus, are of the opinion that no question of law arises and accordingly dismiss this appeal.
-
2009 (12) TMI 929 - ITAT BANGALORE
Agricultural land or capital asset u/s 2(14) - Conversion of the agricultural land for non-agricultural residential purpose - survey u/s.133A - whether the land sold by the assessee was agricultural in nature or not - HELD THAT:- Assessee has produced certificate from the competent authorities that during these years assessee had used the land for growing ragi. In the absence of contrary evidence, the evidence adduced by the assessee coupled with the Village Accountant's certificate, we have to come to a reasonable presumption that the assessee's assertion that the land was used for some kind of agricultural activity, is to be accepted.
It is not disputed that in the revenue records, the entry is not changed, it continues as agricultural land. According to the revenue, the intention and purpose of the sale is for the use of Tibetan Childrens' Village for the setting up of educational institutions and other related purposes. According to the assessee, the land in his hands had retained the agricultural character till the date of sale, for the reason that the assessee was doing agricultural activity. We have hereinabove mentioned that the department had estimated the agricultural income for 2004-05 and estimated the agricultural income of the group. Therefore, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that in the hands of the assessee, the character of the land had changed.
Merely because the original owners had made application to change the character of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural and certificate was issued to that effect. Even for the revenue, there is no case that the land has been used for the intended purpose.
The previous owner made an application for conversion, obtained the permission, but with the condition that the land should be used for the intended purpose within two years, otherwise the original character of the land, i.e., agricultural nature, would be restored. Then the assessee or the subsequent purchased has to pay penalty and make a further application to obtain permission to revive the land for intended purpose. The assessee has not done this even according to the revenue. This was done by the subsequent purchaser i.e., Tibetan Childrens' Village, which compels to conclude that what the assessee held at the time of sale was agricultural land. It is true the facts is on border line, but the evidence produced before us in the form of RTC showing agricultural income etc., is in assessee's favour.
Secondly, In the instant case of the assessee also what was paid by the assessee was agricultural revenue. The non-agricultural revenue was paid by the subsequent purchaser after making an application for the second time to revive the nature of the land, which is evidenced by the letter which was written to the Secretary, Manchanayakanahally Gram Panchayat by the Tibetan Childrens' Village.
In the result, appeal by the assessee on this ground is allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 927 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT assessment order passed by AO u/s 143(3)/153A in respect of assessment year 1999-2000 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because of the reason that certain issues, highlighted in the said order, were not considered at the time of framing of the issues - assessment order has been set aside with direction to the AO to frame the assessment afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making proper enquiries and verifications
HELD THAT:- In the present case, various correspondence and documents which are referred to by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner indicate that Mr. A.L. Mehta had been writing time and again that income had escaped assessment and, therefore, the matter should be looked into.
The argument of the respondents is that the CBDT had wanted the matter to be examined and never intended that the orders are to be passed in one particular manner only. It was pointed out that no such directions were given by the CBDT to the respondent No.4 directing him to pass an order under Section 263 of the Act, necessarily reopening the assessments. He was called upon to examine the matter. The Commissioner passed detailed order under Section 263 of the Act, which depicts his independent mind, and various observations made in this order are not at the dictates of any authority. It was for this reason that submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner was not that any such specific direction was given. Attempt was to demonstrate that the CBDT had “almost dictated the line of action” to the respondent No.4 making him virtually impossible to exercise independent judgment and unfettered discretion in discharge of his statutory function under Section 263 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to give any authoritative pronouncement on this aspect in the facts of this case. Reason is simple and obvious.
ASG, as noted above, as conceded that an opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for making its submissions on the merits of the case by the Commissioner and thereafter fresh order would be passed. For this reason alone, once we proceed to set aside the impugned order, the effect would be that the concerned Commissioner will have to go into this issue afresh for considering the submissions of the petitioner, which would necessarily involve application of his independent mind. This, coupled with the fact that the Commissioner who passed the order is no more the concerned officer, i.e. the respondent No.4, the matter will have to go to another office discharging the duties in the capacity of respondent No.4. In these circumstances, the very basis of the submission that the impugned order was passed on the dictated lines of CBDT vanishes.
Present Commissioner/respondent No.4, while exercising his powers under Section 263 of the Act, shall look into the matter with independent mind without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. While doing so, he shall have regard to the submissions that would be made by the petitioner pleading that it is not a case for exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act. We also permit the petitioner to raise the plea that Mr. Mehta is not a whistleblower, but is a disgruntled person being an ex-employee of the petitioner, who has been fabricating and filing false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner.
Assessment completed under monitoring/supervision – Not amenable to revision u/s 263 - case of the petitioner is that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act was completed under the monitoring of the ACIT/ CIT/CCIT/CBDT and, therefore, such an order could not be regarded as erroneous, much less prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - HELD THAT:- As contented an assessment order is passed under the monitoring of the Commissioner, the successor Commissioner could not set aside the assessment on the ground that the assessment order was passed without application of mind.
Since the matter has to be considered afresh by the Commissioner, even this contention can be raised by the petitioner before the said Commissioner and the Commissioner, while passing the order, shall specifically deal with this contention.
WP is allowed and the impugned order passed by the CIT respondent No.4 is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent No.4 to appropriately deal with the matter and pass fresh order after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on various points canvassed before us or which it intends to raise at the time of fresh hearing.
-
2009 (12) TMI 925 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... llowance of interest, if interest free advance has been given for commercial expediency. In Hotel Savera case cited above the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that when the assessee has its own funds as well as borrowed fund and the money was inextricably mixed up and it was difficult to delineate which funds were utilized for making the advance, no disallowance was called for. 9. Now in the present case, we find that no explanation has been given regarding the purpose of advance. Hence there cannot be any inference that advance was given for business of commercial expediency. Similarly, no case has been made out before us that assessee’s own funds were utilized in making the advances. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14/12/2009 upon conclusion of the hearing.
-
2009 (12) TMI 923 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... accepted position that the applicants are merely highest bidders at the auction sale conducted by the Income Tax Department. Thus, in law, till the point of time the sale is confirmed and sale certificate issued in favour of the applicants by Income Tax Department the applicants would merely be offerers whose offer may or may not be accepted by Income Tax Department. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that the applicants are persons who are directly affected by the outcome of the dispute between the tax defaulter, whose property is put up for auction sale, and the Income Tax Department. (8) In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances Misc. Civil Application No.2593 of 2009 seeking leave to file an application for review is not required to be granted. As a consequence Misc. Civil Application No.1200 of 2009 also is not required to be granted. Accordingly both applications are rejected. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 918 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt for de novo consideration in the light of the judgement in the case of Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills Private Limited (supra), which has been delivered only on 21st July, 2009. The High Court would also consider the tests laid down by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Private Limited reported in (2007) 293 I.T.R. 201 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills, reported in (2007) 294 I.T.R. 328, while disposing of this case on merits. We express no opinion on merits. Subject to what is stated herein, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs." 4. Therefore, following the above judgment, at the consent of the counsel on either side, the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to do the exercise as directed by the Supreme Court in the above said judgement (294 ITR 328). The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
........
|
