|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 6391 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1052 - ITAT COCHIN
Refusal for registration u/s 12AA - whether conducting coaching classes for the students would fall within the meaning of "education" u/s 2(15) - Held that - education is processing of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling - mere coaching classes may provide some kind of knowledge to the students but that kind of knowledge through coaching classes cannot fall within the meaning of "education" - and hence cannot be construed as charitable activity - the taxpayer is conducting coaching classes - and is not eligible for registration u/s 12AA - Decided against the assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1051 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant accordingly gets a relief of ₹ 817962/-.” 13. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that it is the contention of the assessee on this issue that the stock at the time of survey was valued at MRP. If the necessary valuation is done by applying the average purchase cost the same would not result any discrepancy in stock. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has correctly observed that it would be reasonable to allow 20 discount on the MRP value. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has taken a correct view of the matter which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1050 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ssee has realized from the sale of C-ore to M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd more than what is recorded in the assessee's books of account. In this view of the matter, the addition made on account of sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd below market rate, in our considered opinion is not founded on sound and accepted accounting and legal principles and is therefore liable to be deleted. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of ₹ 15,51,45,117. The grounds at S.Nos.2 and 3 raised by revenue are accordingly dismissed”. 5.7 In view of the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 47,97,19,585/- and ₹ 2,26,03,642/-. 6. In the result, the department’s appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced on the 18th day of December, 2012 at Bangalore.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1049 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Topman Exports (supra), only profit on sale of DEPB should be considered for the purpose of exclusion form business profit for computing deduction allowable to the assessee u/s.80HHC and for the computation of profit on sale of DEPB, face value of DEPB is to be considered as costs of DEPB. We, therefore, rectify this apparent mistake in the impugned tribunal order and hold that this issue should go back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision as per this judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Topman Exports (supra).” 3. In the like manner, we hereby hold that the issue is now required to be decided by the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the ground in question is set aside for re-adjudication as per law by the Assessing Officer. 4. In the result, this miscellaneous application stands allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1048 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ustified though it will be deductible from the business income of the company and not from the short term capital gain. The Assessing Officer shall recomputed the income of assessee after giving effect to this order as above and will allow the commission expenditure of Rs. .20,61,266/- from business income. Hence, ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. As regards disallowance of Rs. .1,81,430/- on account of 1/10th of expenses, we are of the opinion that since the Assessing Officer has disallowed the amount merely on estimate basis and relying upon the contention of the assessee that most of the staff was engaged in sale and purchase of shares is not justified. Specifically keeping in view the fact that we have held the income from capital gain and not from business. In view of the above, ground No.4 is also allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 19. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1047 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A - interest expense and management expense - whether expense to be disallowed in relation to exempt income - Held that:- administrative and other expenses are fixed irrespective of the fact whether or not tax free income is earned and therefore, these expenses cannot said to be relatable to exempt income - also there is nothing on record brought out by the AO that the assessee has actually incurred any expenditure in relation to the exempt income - the addition of ₹ 7.05 crores being the proportionate disallowance of interest expenses is deleted - decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1046 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... aring both sides, we find that the fee of ₹ 50,000/- paid a professional fee to its auditors falls u/s 194J. TDS has been deducted in Assessment year 2005-06 but the assessee is following Mercantile System of Accounting. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) is fair enough and has taken a just decision by directing the A.O. to allow this in Assessment year 2006-07. There is no fallacy in this finding of the ld. CIT(A), who has upheld the addition in this Assessment year. 30. Facts and circumstances of second ground raised in this appeal are similar to Ground No 3. raised in Assessment year 2005-06. Except the amounts, all facts of the parties are similar. Therefore, with similar reasoning, we dismiss this ground of appeal. 31. Third ground is decided in same manner as it si decided in Assessment year 2005-06 as above. 32. Accordingly, this appeal in dismissed. 33. In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 14.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1045 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance for provision for privilege leave encashment - Held that - eave encashment is ascertained liability and has been provided on the basis of an actuarial valuation - assessee’s claim for deduction of the provision for privilege leave encashment is not a contingent liability and is to be allowed - Decided in favor of assessee
Disallowance of depreciation on securities - whether investment constitutes stock-in-trade or a capital asset - Held that - whether a particular investment in any security is in the nature of stock-in-trade or otherwise is a question which has to be examined in each case having regard to the nature of transactions, manner of holding - Matter remanded back
-
2012 (12) TMI 1044 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal’s decision, we dismiss this issue of Revenue’s appeal. The revenue had not distinguished the findings of Coordinate Bench given for earlier year when transactions are same and depreciation claimed on written down the value of the same assets on sale and lease back transaction, then, we have to follow the earlier decision otherwise material facts are different. Thus, we are of considered view that by following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in earlier year, we allow the appeal of the assessee in his favour and dismiss the revenue’s appeal on these grounds. 17. Assessee’s ground nos. 6 for A.Y. 05-06 & ground no.4 for A.Y. 06-07 are against charging of interest u/s.234B, 234C & 234D are consequential to the above finding. Therefore, the A.O. is directed to take decision as per law. 18. In the result, the Assessee & Revenue’s appeals for both assessment years are partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 28.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI
Transactions on sale of shares - whether business income or short term capital gain - Held that:- assessee has held the shares of various companies as investments only - mere fact that some shares have been held for less than 30 days will not by itself make the appellant a trader - assessee has intention of enjoying the appreciation in value of shares and merely that some shares have been sold in less than 1 year, cannot lead to conclusion that he had a different intention in respect of such shares - assessee has used his own funds for the purchase of shares and no borrowed fund was used by the assessee - it is relevant to see the intention of the assessee as to whether the activity amounts to trading activity or investment activity - thus the intention of the assessee is to hold as investment - also volume of transactions would not alter the nature of transaction from investment to trading hence the profits are to be shown as short term capital gains - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1042 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition in respect of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) determined by the TPO, comprising of two parts towards freight receipts and towards freight payments - Held that:- The assessee shared profit in the ratio of 50:50 both on the payments made by it and the receipts of freight from its AEs. We have perused the submissions and the finding of the CIT(A) on the functions performed, assets employed and risk undertaken by both the AEs in such transactions. DR could not controvert such finding that the functions performed, assets employed and risk undertaken in both the AEs is same. The assessee paid certain sum to its AEs abroad for doing the work similar to which it did for which it received freight revenue from its AEs.
The crux of the matter is that in both the situations, the total receipts are taken on one hand, from which all the expenses incurred in connection with the transportation of cargo in both the countries are excluded. The remaining amount is distributed between the entity of origin country and the entity of destination country in equal share. As the assessee has earned/paid revenue from/to its AEs in the same proportion, in our considered opinion, the transactions have been recorded at arm’s length price and there was no justification for making such addition. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1041 - ITAT MUMBAI
Additions by way of Transfer Pricing adjustments on payment of royalty - Held that:- manufacturing of goods by the assessee was in any case not possible without the technical knowhow and assistance from SCJ (Associated Enterprise) in Japan - assessee entered into an agreement for obtaining license to manufacture specified insecticides and pesticides and agreed to pay 5% royalty on the value addition and RBI has approved it - is also not necessary for the assessee to show that any expenditure incurred by him for the purpose of business carried on by him has actually resulted in profit or income either in the same year or in any of the subsequent years - The only condition is that the expenditure should have been incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of business - since royalty is paid for allowing assessee in utilizing the technical knowhow and the license for manufacturing activity, we are of the opinion that the payment of royalty is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - Hence AO to allow the royalty as claimed - following the order of coordinate bench of this Tribunal dated 7th November, 2012 (supra) passed in assessee’s own case - decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1040 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... sion cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee. We find that this is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order that the facts are identical in para 2 of his order. He also noted that the A.O. made addition in both these years on account of difference in stock as per books and as per stock statement given to the bank. In assessment year 201-02, the tribunal has deleted the penalty and in holding so, the tribunal has followed the judgement of Hon’ble Calcutta High court rendered in the case of Bharat Minerals Sales Corporation as reported in 253 ITR 419. Since, no difference in the facts could be pointed out by the Ld. D.R., we find no reason to take contrary view in the present year and hence, respectfully following the tribunal order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2001-02, we delete the penalty in the present year also. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 5. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1037 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the building was only exploiting the property as owner by letting out the same and realizing income by way of rent. Such rental income was liable to be assessed under the head ‘income from house property.’ The various assets let out to the tenants are incidental to letting out the building being integral part of the letting. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the assessing officer. This ground of the revenue is allowed.” 10. Since the issue under consideration is similar to that of the case decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 (supra), respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in treating the income in question as ‘income from house property’ and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1036 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(i)(iii) - Held that:- As far as the advance to M/s Devbhumi Spinning & Weaving Mills is concerned, no purpose for the same was given before the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A). Though before us, it was stated that the same was for the purpose of purchase of property but no evidence was filed before us, therefore, in the absence of any evidence it has to be concluded that money has been diverted for non business purpose. Since the assessee has admittedly borrowed huge amounts on interest, the proportionate interest has to be disallowed in respect of the advances made to M/s Devbhumi Spinning & Weaving Mills - remit the issue relating to the disallowance of interest on account of advance to M/s Balwindra Tools Pvt Ltd to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the iqrarnama filed before the first appellate authority and decide the issue in accordance with law.
Disallowance of expenses of interest u/s 14A - Held that:- Investment made in a firm is to be treated as investment for earning exempt income - after introduction of Section 14A, it was possible to apportion the expenditure between taxable income and exempted income.
The perusal of the assessment order shows as observed earlier, no where before the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has made a specific mention to show which particular funds were borrowed for which particular requirement and in the absence of such specific utilization Rule 8D, would be applicable. Perusal of the assessment order shows that disallowance u/s 14A has been worked out on the basis of Rule 8D which is as observed earlier applicable in case of the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1034 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... of reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) is wholly applicable. The project before us has been approved by the local authority i.e. PMC as a residential-cum-commercial project and therefore, it qualifies to be seen in the same manner as explained by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra). Therefore, the aforesaid objection raised by the Revenue to dis-entitle the assessee from claiming of deduction u/s 80- IB(10) of the Act is untenable.” 14. In view of the above precedent, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act as the restriction in section 80- IB(10)(d) of the Act is prospective in nature and shall not be applicable to projects approved and commenced prior to 1-4-2005. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 31st December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1032 - ITAT JODHPUR
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- A.O. has examined each and every of the issues, as per law. The order of ld. CIT is directory in the nature which is based on his own view as against the taken by the A.O. We don't find any lack of inquiry or even a case of inadequate inquiry. Under section 263, the commissioner cannot substitute his own view.
He has not given any valid reason as to how the assessment order is erroneous. He has simply stated that the assessment order dated 7.1.2011 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to that extent. The intention of this section is somewhat different. In case the A.O. has not made enquiries and taken an erroneous decision regarding an item of income, only then the order can be said to be erroneous on that point. A.O. takes a possible view qua a claim made and the ld. CIT takes another possible view, the order cannot be said to be erroneous.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1031 - ITAT NAGPUR
Grant of registration u/s. 12A - proof of charitable activities - Held that:- Main activity of the trust was to provide education to students of architecture as per the course approved by the appropriate authorities and the admission policy, the fee structure endorsed by the Government of India. - The objects, cannot be said to be the objects, which run against public policy or do not fall within the category of activities, which are for charitable purposes. Education in itself is a charitable purpose and activities related thereto, cannot, in any manner, be described as a non-charitable purpose or much less a non-educational activity. It has also not been brought on record that the fees collected by the assessee was for any other object-except that mentioned in the objects of that society.
Sec. 12AA does not speak anywhere that the CIT, while considering the application for registration, shall also see that the income derived by the trust or the institution is either not being spent for charitable purpose or such institution is earning profits. In these circumstances, CIT was not justified in refusing registration under sec.12AA to assessee. His observation with regard to alleged accounting irregularities are not relevant for deciding the issue of registration.
As perused the Trust Deed of the Assessee-Trust. In our opinion, nature and activities of the Trust prove that it is an institution covered by the provisions of Sec. 2(15) of the Act.
As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and CIT-III, Nagpur is directed to grant registration u/s. 12A of the Act to the Assessee-Trust.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1030 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... AYs 2000-01, 2002-03,2004-05 & 2005-06 did not make even a whisper on the issue raised by the assessee in their appeal for the AY 2003-04 in ground nos.1 and 2 relating to addition of ₹ 5,60,117/- nor the assessee in his MA raised any such issue about this claim. Apparently, the ITAT did not adjudicate the issues raised in this appeal of the assessee for the AY 2003-04 in their order dated 30.4.2010 . Moreover, when appeal of the Revenue for the same assessment year was pending, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CST vs. Vijai Int. Udhyog,152 ITR 111(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Balwant Singh Arora (1989) 180 ITR 400 (P&H)., cross appeals have to be heard simultaneously. In view of the foregoing, plea of the assessee that a mistake requiring rectification has crept in the aforesaid order dated 30th April, 2010 is baseless and devoid of merit. 6. In result, miscellaneous application is rejected.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1029 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ence, the amount added back to the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. 14. Upon assessee’s appeal in this regard, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that the provision was expressly not allowable as per the Act on the date of assessment, the action of the Assessing Officer is considered justified and accordingly the addition was upheld. 15. Against the above order the assessee has filed the cross objection before us. 16. We have carefully considered the submissions and proposition in this regard. We find that the amendment which led to the disallowance in this regard was operating as per the Act on the date of assessment and the previous year under consideration was also included. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and hence, we uphold the same. 17. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14/12/2012.
............
|
