|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 918 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ment and therefore, the benefit of the circular could not be available beyond the explanation and claim of the assessee at the time of statement recorded u/s 132 when there is no material and evidence to prove the contrary. 8 Having regarded the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has taken a correct and proper view in granting the benefit of the circular no.1916 dt 11.5.1994. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue and the same deserve to be dismissed. 8.1 The decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ratanlal Vyaarilal Jain (supra) as relied upon by the assessee will not help the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the appeals filed both by the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed. 9 In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on the 15th, day of June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 917 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... he case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri (2007) 291 ITR 500 and after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri (supra), the Delhi High Court concluded that the A.O. has not applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that on the basis of the material which he had before him, income had escaped assessment. In the instant case also, it is crystal clear that the A.O. has not applied his mind and also not independently arrived at a belief that on the basis of the material he had before him, income has escaped assessment, and therefore, we allow ground nos.1 to 4 of the appeal and quash the reassessment order. 8. Since we have quashed the reassessment order dated 29-12-2006 and, therefore, we do not think it necessary to decide grounds of appeal raised on merits by the assessee in this appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above. The order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 916 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Assessing Officer but the assessee has produced the certificate of the local Panchayat. The certificate clearly showed that the projects had been completed before 31-03- 2008. It is also noticed that the learned CIT(A) has accepted that the local authority as specified in the said section includes the Panchayat also. It is also noticed that the learned CIT(A) has considered the definition of ‘local authority’ in section 10(20) which includes the Panchayat. As it is noticed that the Panchyat is also in the in the definition of the local authority in section 10(20) of the Act, the completion certificate issued by the Panchayat would entitle the assessee for the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. In the circumstances, we find that the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the court on 24/06/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 915 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... determined on the application of Section 115J/115JA in the regular assessment.” 5. The Tribunal, in the impugned order has held that no interest under sections 234B and 234C would be chargeable in the assessee's case for the assessment year under consideration since the assessment has been made after taking recourse to the provisions of section 115J of the Act. The decision of the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred decision, and as such cannot be sustained. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, the question is, accordingly, answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal had erred in holding that the interest under sections 234B and 234C is not chargeable if the total income is assessed to tax under section 115J of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order dated 23.8.2001 made by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). He held that, as far as freight reimbursement is concerned, the expenditures have been made on behalf of the assessee and the assessee only reimbursed the expenses and in such circumstances, no deduction of tax could be made at source under section 194C of the Act. 4. Mumbai “G” Bench of Tribunal in ITA no.4652/Mum./2009, order dated 25th February 2011, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07, on similar facts upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and deleted the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and hold that no deduction of tax at source need be done under section 194C of the Act, where the assessee was reimbursing the cost incurred by third party on its behalf. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 913 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ile of AO for making on some reasonable basis. It has further been held in this case the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable as these are prospective. Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to compute disallowance u/s.14A in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforenoted case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd. 15. Ground no. 2 is against confirmation of disallowance of bad debts written off by the assessee amounting to ₹ 2,15,000/-. 15.1. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of this ground are similar to those of asstt. year 2004-05. As we have decided similar issue in assessee’s favour in asstt. year 2004-05 above, following the same, we overturn the impugned order on this issue and order for the deletion of addition. This ground is allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 03rd day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 912 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) - Interest on Loan taken for Investment - The assessee took a loan and invested it in subsidiary company, undisputedly, as an investment - Assessee claimed a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of the interest payable by it to the bank - AO held that since the investment is out of borrowed funds for business, the proportionate interest is to be disallowed.
HELD THAT:- ITAT found that the assessee had invested the amount in question in subsidiary company, for the acquisition of its shares i.e. to have a control over majority shares but not to earn dividend on interest. Before ITAT, it was not disputed that such an investment is an integral part of the business. In these circumstances, ITAT, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to the amount as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii).
Assessee's submission that amount paid to subsidiary company must be treated as loan is not acceptable since the assessee has nowhere stated that the amount has been paid to subsidiary company must be treated as loan neither there is anything to support the contention that the assessee is now claiming that the amount be added as an interest receivable on bad debts.
We find that the reasoning of the ITAT that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary company to have control over that company and, therefore, the element of interest paid on the overdraft was not susceptible of bifurcation and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) is correct and deserves to be accepted.
In this result, we hold that ITAT was right in deleting the addition, thus the question is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 911 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... gree with the arguments of the A.O and the learned D.R. that the Society is not a co- operative Society. In this, we are supported by the order of Navdeep Co-op Bank Ltd. ( 43 ITD 697), merely because the assessee Society contravened the rules, regulations, directions of the reserve Bank of India, so long as the registration was enjoyed by it, the A.O., was not justified in holding that the assessee is not a Co-operative Society. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee Society will continue to enjoy the status of a Co-opeative Society and, therefore, deduction u/s 80P will be available to the assessee.” Following the above decision of the Tribunal, we find that the ld CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We thus do not find infirmity in the first appellate order in this regard. The same is upheld. The same is upheld. The Grounds are accordingly rejected. 5. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 910 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... endment in the section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2001 is remedial in nature and it was designed to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the taxpayers and therefore this amendment would be retrospective in nature and accordingly applicable to the assessment year under appeal. We therefore direct the AO to examine the payment of TDS by the assessee and in respect of payment for which TDS is deposited before the due date of filing of the return no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would be made. However, in respect of the item where either no TDS is deducted or after the deduction the same is not deposited before the due date for filing of the return, disallowance would be sustained. Needless to mention, the learned AO will re-adjudicate the issue after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 17th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 909 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... paid within the due date of filing of return and accordingly falling u/s. 43B of the Act. We find that the issue now is crystally clear that these expenditures falling u/s. 43B of the Act are allowable, hence while processing the return u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 26.5.2003 was as per law and processing was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to provoke the revenue to initiate action u/s. 263 of the Act for revision of the same. Accordingly, on merits also we hold that the disallowances made by CIT(A) is without legal force. Accordingly, we quash the same. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, ITA No.695/K/2008, revenue’s appeal is dismissed, CO. No.36/K/2008, assessee’s CO is partly allowed, ITA No.696/K/2008 revenue’s appeal is partly allowed, CO No.37/K/2008 assessee’s CO is partly allowed and ITA No.1935/K/2008 assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. Order pronounced in open court on 20.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 908 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee in the replacement of dyes and tools is to be treated as revenue expenditure or not. It appears that since the AO was satisfied with the aforesaid Explanation, he accepted the same. The CIT in his impugned order even accepts this. Thus, even the CIT conceded the position that the AO made the inquiries, elicited replies and thereafter passed the assessment order. The grievance of the CIT was that the AO should have made further inquiries rather than accepting the Explanation. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of 'lack of inquiry'." Emphasis supplied . 6.3 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following above decisions, we hold that the ld. C.I.T. was not justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 02/3/2006. We, therefore, allow grounds of appeal of the assessee and quash the order passed by ld. C.I.T. u/s. 263 of the Act. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 907 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... eard both the parties. Before us the Ld.A/R submitted that valuation report is dated 18.12.2004 i.e. before the end of the previous year. Basement & ground floor were complete. The assessee has occupied the house during the year. Telephone Bill is in the name of Pawan Aggarwal, who is nephew of assessee. The assessee has stated that he has shifted in October, 2004. It is seen that the assessee has raised loan for construction. Hence the portion which was occupied by assessee in October, 2004 is to be ascertained and investment in such portion out of bank loan upto October, 2004 is to be ascertained. Interest upto October, 2004 will be apportioned in 5 Assessment years from A.Y. 05-06 onward. Interest on bank loan in respect of portion occupied from October, 2004 to March, 2005 will be allowable u/s 24(b). The A.O. will recompute the interest allowable. 19. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 20. The order is pronounced in open Court on 10.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 906 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... earned CIT(A) has upheld the same on the basis that these were investment of the assessee only. The contention of the assessee remained that the assessee was not following mercantile method of accounting and the interest on these investments would become due and payable on maturity i.e. after end of block period and to be assessed in regular assessment. 46. After having gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Learned CIT(A) has not examined the above contentions of the assessee and has decided the issue on the basis of general approach towards other addition made on account of undisclosed income. We thus set aside the issue to the file of the Learned CIT(A) to decide it considering the above contention of the assessee after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties. The ground no.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 47. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 6th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 905 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ted bank transactions of the assessee (pages 6 to 9 of the Assessee’s Paper Book), as available from the assessee’s bank statement with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. That being so, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to apply the peak credit method. The assessee had been drawing cash from his account and had also been deposited cash therein. As such, the AO ought to have allowed the benefit of withdrawals made by the assessee from the same bank account, which had not been done. The amount of ₹ 1,49,110/- represented the peak deficit amount as on 1.2.07. If this amount was available with the assessee, all the deposits in the bank account could have been explained and there would have left surplus of ₹ 1,31,222/- with the assessee. 17. In view of the above, finding no error with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby confirmed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 904 - ITAT KOLKATA
Denied Registration u/s 12AA - Exemption u/s 80G - Registration was denied as Assessee didn't commence its activities as contemplated in the Trust Deed - The registration u/s. 80G has also been denied for the same reason
HELD THAT:- In assessee's own case M/S. GINIA DEVI TODI CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) [2010 (4) TMI 1155 - ITAT KOLKATA], the case of DHARMA SANSTHAPAK SANGH (NIYAS). VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2008 (8) TMI 393 - ITAT DELHI-A] was followed, where it was held that "the objects of the trust are specifying purpose of religious activities. The registration cannot be denied to the assessee for the reason that it is not carrying on charitable activities. Religious activities are also construed to be charitable activities as per the decision of Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RADHASWAMI SATSANG SABHA [1953 (10) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of HAZARAT PIRMAHOMED SHAH SAHEB ROZA COMMITTEE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT [1966 (10) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT]. The carrying of charitable activity at the stage of commencement of institution is not relevant to decide that whether such trust/ institution is entitled for registration. So long the objects of the trust are charitable in nature, registration cannot be refused"
Respectfully following the precedent, we direct the D.I.T. (E) to grant registration to the assessee-trust u/s. 12AA and also grant exemption certificate u/s. 80G - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 903 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d for because exemption under section 10B was allowed after excluding the expenses related to such income. The said exemption was quantified, in accordance with section 10B of the Act. Therefore, applying the provisions of section 14A, resulting in duplicating the exercises, is not called for. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the ground no.2 for both the assessment years. 7.2 Finally, with regard to deletion of disallowance under section 14A for earning income exempt under section 10(35), we are convinced that no disallowance can be made, unless the assessee has invested out of borrowed funds for earning exempt income. Since, in this case, investments were made out of own funds, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the Act. On this ground, the ground no.3 for both the assessment years is also rejected. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 10.06.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 902 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... , the ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the documents on the basis of which proceedings u/s 153C of the Act had been initiated, did not belong to the assessee. The provisions of section 153C of the Act were invoked by the AO without the satisfaction note of the AO of the person in whose case the search had been conducted. 12. In view of the above, finding no error therein, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed, rejecting the grievance of the appeal raised by the Department. ITA Nos. 37 to 40 &44 (Del)2010 13. As stated in the beginning of this order, the facts in these cases are pari materia with those in ITA No. 43(Del)2010(supra). Therefore, our observations made therein are, mutatis mutandis, applicable to all these cases also. Following those observations herein also, the grievance of the Department in all these appeals is also rejected. 14. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 901 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... the claim of expenses raised by the assessees. Since no specific defect has been pointed out in the order of the CIT(A), we find no infirmity therein. We accordingly confirm the same. 13. In ITA No.75 of 2010, the assessee has raised one more ground with regard to an addition of ₹ 2,91,964/- towards the difference in net project turnover. From a careful perusal of the order of the lower authorities, we find that this addition was made on account of difference between the net project turnover which is ₹ 4,00,00,304/- and the turnover reflected in the books of accounts of ₹ 3,97,08,340/-. Before the CIT(A), assessee was asked to reconcile the difference but he failed to do so. Similar was the position before us, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who has confirmed the additions. Accordingly, we confirm the same. 14. In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 3.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 900 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... s to be considered retrospective. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT 328 ITR 81, inter alia, that when the amendment is curative or it is intended to remedy unintended consequences or to render a statutory provision workable, the amendment may be construed to relate back to the provision in respect of which it supplies a remedial effect. 34. Considering the above decisions and the amendment now made by the Finance Act, 2008, we are of the considered view that the income derived by the assessee from marketing of clonal plants is in the nature of agricultural income. Thus it is exempted under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, we agree with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and reject Ground No. 4 of the appeal taken by the Department. 35. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and whereas appeal of the Department is dismissed. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.06. 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 899 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... mated on adhoc basis an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- as expenditure attributable to earning exempted income. He ought to have appreciated that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure for earning the said income and therefore ought to have allowed the exempt income u/s. 10(33) of the Income tax act, 1961 as claimed by the assessee Company.” 43. The only issue raised in both these grounds is with regard to disallowance of managerial and administrative expenses u/s.14A. This issue has been discussed and decided in revenue’s appeal vide para 5 of this order. Facts being similar so following the same reasoning deletion of addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- is upheld. 44. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 45. To sum up, all the departmental appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2000-01 to 2002-03 are partly allowed while assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June 2011.
............
|
