|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1104 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Rejecting the books of account and applying provisions of section 145(3) - Held that:- CIT(A) was quite aware as is evident from the findings in his order that the assessee has maintained regular books of account showing details of purchases and sales including that sale of scrap. The findings thereafter in the said paras are based on surmises and conjectures. The reliance is placed by the ld. CIT(A) on the decisions of various courts of law, therefore, cannot help the Revenue. There is no evidence with any of the authorities below that the assessee has made the sales of the production which have been produced by the assessee and had made sales outside the books of account. In the facts and circumstances of the case and to repeat our decision, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the invocation of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and no additions can be made accordingly, as discussed hereinabove - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 1103 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause(c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed.” 11. In the present case, therefore, the assessee failed to offer any explanation in not offering a particular amount to tax. This was finding of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Tribunal. Even if the speculation profit was eligible for set off against carry forward speculation loss, the same would have effect of diminishing such speculation loss which would be carry forwarded for future years. It is by now well settled through statutory provisions as well as decisions of the Apex Court in case of loss return also, the penalty could be imposed if by virtue of wrong claim not made bona fide, computation of loss is likely to reduce. 12.In the result, we do not find any question of law arising. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1102 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 28,00,000/-. Addition of ₹ 28,00,000/- is directed to be deleted. Ground No.1 is allowed." 7. On perusal of the above said finding, we find that CIT(A) has taken a just and appropriate decision to delete the impugned addition. Such conclusion as arrived by CIT(A) also find support form the decision of 'B' Bench of the ITAT in the case of C.M.Y.K. Printech Ltd.(supra) in which one of us is a party. Neither any contrary material has been placed on record, nor any higher courts' decision has been placed by the Revenue to convince us take a different view than taken by the CIT(A). As such while considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances and on record, we concur with the finding of the CIT(A) and while upholding his order, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue being de void of any merits. 8. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue gets dismissed. Order pronounced in open court soon after the conclusion of the hearing on 29.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital gains - Long Term or Short Term - Date of Acquisition to be computed from date of allotment or date of possession of flat - Held that:- the “date of allotment” is reckoned as the date for computing the holding period for the purpose of capital gains despite of the fact that the physical possession of the flat was given to the assessee much later - Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi - Decided in the favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1100 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... same has also not been accepted by the CIT A , we have no hesitation to hold that both the lower authorities have erred . 10. In the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue back to the files of the AO . The AO is directed to consider the calculation of the assessee for disallowable expenditure in the light of the facts of the case. The AO is also directed to verify the investments vis-a-vis borrowed funds, whether the assessee has incurred any finance cost, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No.1 is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Issues involved in ground No. 2 are covered by the decisions for ground No. 1 and are therefore restored back to the files of the AO to be decided in line with the directions given for ground No.1 herein above. Ground No.2 is also allowed for statistical purpose. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1099 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - when the assessee was having sufficient non-interest bearing funds for making investments during the year, then there is no reason to make addition
Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA by the TPO - NO upward adjustment in ALP in relation to charging of guarantee commission.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1098 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Computation of capital gains - Adoption of Fair Market value - Held that:- it is prudent on the part of the lower authorities to estimate the fair market value as on 1-4-1981 on the basis of the valuation officer's report, through reverse indexation method and consequently orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Authority are set aside - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1097 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... i 189 ITR 359 (Bom), Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that court cannot ignore retrospective amendment while considering application u/s 256 (2) and has to exercise a jurisdiction in the light of the law as it is deemed to stand on the date when the Tribunal decided the appeal. In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT 105 TTJ (Mum) (TM) 1010, the ITAT, Third Member Bench had held that when a law is amended with retrospective effect, the authority when he decides any proceedings has to apply such retrospectively amended law as it were enforced at all material times. 9. Considering the above case laws and the clear provisions of the second Explanation added in Section 234D, we are of the opinion that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is to be reversed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and decide the issue in favour of the revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... uld not have started the business. In view of the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid decisions of the High Courts we are of the view that the assessee had commenced the business in April, 2001. 12. A.O. vide assessment order has stated that the expenses are in the nature of salaries, pay-roll, travel expenses, general office expenses and computer installation, office buildings, telephone rent etc. Revenue has no dispute with the nature of expenses. Its dispute is that since the business had not commenced, the expenditure is not allowable. Since we have already held above that the assessee had commenced business therefore the expenses which are of revenue nature are therefore allowable. 13. In view of the totality of facts we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A). Thus we uphold the order of the CIT (A). Thus this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30- 11- 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1095 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n respect of levying of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was received by the assessee. Hence, it is pleaded that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee for non-appearance on the date of hearing. Hence, it was requested MA NO. 133/DEL/2012 that the aforesaid order of the tribunal may be recalled and heard on merits. Ld. Departmental Representative did not have any objection to the above proposition. Accordingly, we recall our aforesaid order dated 14.10.2011. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal on 28.1.2013. 2. In the result, the Misc. application filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1094 - ITAT BANGALORE
TPA - ALP determination - comparable selection - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in the business of providing contract pharmaceuticals Research & Development services, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
As already seen in the earlier part of this order, if the six companies (including IDC India Ltd. and Mindtree Ltd.) is taken as comparables, the operating margins on cost (unadjusted) is 10.22%. The assessee's operating margin on cost is 13.17% which is much above the arithmetic mean of the comparables. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that the price at which the assessee rendered services to its AE has to be considered as at arms' length and no adjustment on account of arms' length price (ALP) ought to have been made. We accordingly hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way adjustment to ALP deserves to be deleted.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1092 - ITAT CHENNAI
Reassessment u/s 147 - Expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Held that - The concept of block of assets has been brought in by the Parliament from the assessment year 1988-89, whether the mill is an integrated whole or not, whether the replacement of machines resulted in increased capacity or not, will have no bearing and when any item belonging to the block is removed, its value is reduced and if any new item comes in its place, its value is added to the block. - To be treated as capital expenditure - decided in favor of revenue.
Levy of interest u/s 234B and/or 220(2) - The case of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has levied interest u/s 220(2) without considering the circular dated 3-4-1982 - Held that:- in the assessment order itself at page No.10 the Assessing Officer has charged the interest under section 234B - As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anujm M.H. Ghaswala And Others [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court], charging of interest under section 234B of the Act is mandatory. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1090 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - joint venture agreement - assessee is to be treated as developer or builder of the project or not - Held that:- The assessee contributed the land, undertook the developmental activities on the land and thus complied with all other conditions which have to be fulfilled before claiming benefit under section 80IB(10). It is after sale of the built area, in terms of section 80IB(10), the assessee is claiming deduction - Therefore, in respect of the residential units, the persons who undertook this undertaking are entitled to the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act in proportion to the share to which they are entitled to in the built up area. Thus assessee is eligible to claim the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s.Shravanee Constructions [2012 (7) TMI 88 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1088 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee or his parent. About this there is no dispute in this case as the revenue has not disputed the fact that agricultural income has been regularly declared by the assessee in the returns of income in respect of agricultural activities on these lands and the same were accepted by the Revenue. The assessee has also furnished evidence in the form of 7 and 12 extract in which the crop grown by the assessee on the lands were also entioned. o p /o p In the light of this factual position of this case, we are satisfied that assessee has fulfilled the condition as laid down for claiming exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act on enhanced compensation received by him during the year under appeal on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural lands, the order passed by the lower authorities are hereby set aside on this issue and the A.O. is directed to grant exemption as claimed by the assessee u/s 10(37) of the Act. o p /o p 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1087 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... all facts at the time of original assessment. 11. In this regard, we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC) wherein it was held that reassessment cannot be initiated on the basis of change of opinion. 12. We further find that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. Full Bench of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had held that an assessment can not be reopened on a mere change of opinion. 13. On the above discussions and precedents, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment is not valid. The present case is hit by the proviso to Section 147 of the I.T. Act. Further it is a case of change of opinion of Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), hence, we uphold the same. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1082 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ar/categorical direction to disallow depreciation claimed on goodwill need to be deleted and the Assessing Officer be at liberty to examine the issue in the light of the various case laws on which the assessee’s counsel had placed unstinting confidence. Hence, the issue is restored to the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the matter afresh de hors the direction given by the CIT and consider the issue on merits in accordance with law and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court inthecase of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd (supra). It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.557 & 558/Bang/2012 for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Consequently, the stay petition preferred by the assessee in S.P. NOs.141 & 147/Bang/2012 for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 are rendered infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th Nov., 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT DELHI
Addition made on account of books purchases from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation - Held that:- When sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed purchases on the basis of which sales were made. Only option if any was available with the department was to estimate the income of the assessee during the year on the basis of trading result of earlier three years, made available at page no- 38 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.
As during the year, the assessee has shown better gross profit at a better GP rate of 27.67 % in comparison to the GP profit and GP rates of earlier two AYs. In the AY 2005-06, the assessee has shown GP rate on 25.67 % and in AY 2004-05, the GP rate shown is 25.47%. Since the assessee has shown better GP rate during the year, we find that there is no justification to make addition even on this account. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue direct the AO to delete the addition in question at ₹ 43,34,496/- made by the AO on account of the alleged bogus purchases made from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1077 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account of bonus paid to the Contractor’s labourers - Held that:- It is fact that the assessee has paid the bonus to the labourers of the contractor which has not been doubted by the A.O. The appellant had not proved the custom prevailing in the line of business of same locality before the A.O. Therefore, we have considered view in the interest of justice that one more opportunity is to be given for all three years to the appellant to prove that the bonus paid by the appellant to the labourers of the contractor falls under custom prevailing or not and decide the issues, accordingly, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Accordingly, on this issue, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the A.O. for de novo in all three years. - Decided in favour of assessee for statsitical purposes.
Addition on account of foreign travelling expenses - Held that:- A.R. fairly accepted that these expenses were incurred for business purposes but they did not have any sufficient evidence to prove that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Therefore, the same has not been pressed. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is held valid - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1071 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Revision of assessment order - Essential twin conditions for invoking the revisional jurisdiction not fulfilled - Held that:- It is clear that the learned CIT had merely on a change of opinion and to substitute his own opinion about the deficiencies in the maintenance of the record by the assessee invoked the revisional jurisdiction and set aside the assessment order. This is not permissible under section 263 of the Act.
Once the order of the assessing authority stood merged with higher appellate authority, the parallel authority on the administrative side, namely, CIT, even cannot revise later on the order passed by the assessing authority, which stood merged with the order of appellate authority. In the case of the present assessee itself, this Court on previous occasion in CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [1999 (9) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN High Court], quashed the revisional order under section 263 of the Act.
Findings arrived at by the Tribunal essentially remain findings of fact, which do not give rise to any substantial question of law, requiring consideration by this Court. Mere alleged insufficiency of the enquiry in the opinion of the CIT by the assessing authority, could not permit him to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and, therefore, the essential twin conditions for invoking the revisional jurisdiction, namely, the impugned assessment being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, were not at all satisfied in the present case. - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 990 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Registration u/s 12AA - Charitable purpose - Section 2(15) - advancement of any other object of general public utility - Held that:- If the assessee conducts marathon in a commercial manner, then the trust cannot be said to be existing only for charitable purposes in view of the amended definition of the charitable purpose w.e.f. 1.4.2008 - DIT(E) is directed to examine whether receipt of fees from marathon is incidental to charitable object of the assessee or it is the main activity of the assessee and decide thereupon. If the assessee falls under the purview of amended provision of section 2(15), then registration is not to be granted - In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
