|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 878 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er, even the peak credit of ₹ 1.5 lacs stands explained from the cash withdrawals made earlier. In view of the above, the addition made by the A.O. of ₹ 18,33,676 is ordered to be deleted”. 5. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Learned First Appellate Authority has recorded a finding of fact. It is a matter of fact on the record that amounts referred by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order in a tabular form does not come out to ₹ 18,33,676. He has not examined the facts in an analytical way. We could understand the case of A.O. if cash deposit was more than the withdrawals made by the assessee or exceeds total collection of the year from plying trucks. Considering the findings of the Learned CIT(Appeals), we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the Learned First Appellate Authority. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 877 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eized material. More so, learned CIT(Appeals) has recorded a finding that a loan was taken from Shri Rajiv Gupta and not given. In such situation, addition on account of unexplained investment cannot be made. Learned CIT(Appeals) has appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective and no addition is called for. Hence the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 11 .09.2009” 8. It may be mentioned here that following the aforementioned order, the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s P.C. Chemicals (supra) has deleted the addition. 9. In view of the above discussion, respectfully following the aforementioned orders, we dismiss the appeals filed by the revenue. We also dismiss the cross objections filed by the assessee as the ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press them. 10. In the result, the appeals as well as cross objections both are dismissed in the manner aforesaid. Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 16.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 876 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 33,22,018/- being Lease depreciation and lease equalization reserve is concerned, we find the Tribunal in assessee’s own case has discussed the issue for the A.Y.’s 1995- 96 to 1997-98 and the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue has been dismissed. However such order of the Tribunal is dated 19.03.2004 and the assessee in the impugned case has filed its return of income much earlier. The assessee all along was claiming the same in the return of the income and full disclosures were there. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) in the past has allowed such claim of the assessee. Therefore, in our view, the issue being debatable in nature, does not warrant attraction of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 24th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 875 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has no grievance on additional ground No.2 and 3 for filing appeal before the Tribunal and even if the assessee would have preferred appeal on these grounds, the appeal of the assessee would not have been maintainable. Therefore, there is no question of admission of these additional grounds at this stage. Further additional ground No.1 and 3 have not been raised before the CIT (A) and no facts are available on record therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Ltd., (supra) would not support the case of the assessee. Considering the above discussion and in the light of the above facts and the decisions noted above, we are not inclined to admit these additional grounds of appeal. 35. In the result, request of the assessee for admission of 3 Additional grounds of appeal is rejected. 36. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 7-06- 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 874 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1999-00) (dtd. 16.08.2005), D- Bench Mumbai also held that “in any other case” would certainly include where tax has been paid by way of self assessment. Considering these facts I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to interest on refund as arising on account of excess payment of self assessment. Therefore, the AO is directed to allow the interest u/s.244A in accordance with the law.” o p /o p 5. Carefully reading of the above para shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of various decisions rendered by different benches of the Tribunal including the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Novartis India Ltd. (Supra) which has been followed. Since the Ld. DR could not bring to our notice any contrary decision, we decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. o p /o p 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 15th day of June, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 873 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ote (Form-A), copy of purchase bill issued by the broker M/s. Ayushi Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Cosmos Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.), copy of the account statement in the confirmation certificate of Ayushi Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and copies of drafts through which the sale proceeds was received. The assessee had also relied on various orders of ITAT. We noted that enquiries were made by the Investigation Wing, Agra with regard to the impugned share transactions, but no adverse finding of the Investigation Wing was brought on record. The shares of G.K. Consultants Ltd. were listed shares at Calcutta Stock Exchange. There is nothing on record to show that all these documents are false or fabricated. In view of all these documents, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has committed no error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) needs no interference. 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 872 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... at Page-235 of assessee’s paper book, relied on by the learned Departmental Representative, it is not of much help, as the fixed deposit in question was made by MPEB in its own name with State Bank of India and interest was earned by MPEB and not the assessee. The assessee was kept informed of this. This does not give a right to the assessee to receive interest. xxii) Similarly, the letters dated 27th September and 24th October 1998, are of no consequence as the Court had to finally adjudicate the issue. 25. In view of the above discussions and the legal position as applied to the facts of the case, we hold that no income by way of interest on security deposit with MPEB, as accrued to the assessee in all the assessment years under consideration. Ground no.1 is, thus, allowed. 26. As we have allowed ground no.1, it is not necessary to adjudicate the alternative ground i.e., ground no.2, as it would be an academic exercise. 27. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 871 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C) , it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan 2003 263 ITR 706(SC) it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law. That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra). Hence, in the cases arising before 1.4.2002, losses pertaining to exempted income cannot be disallowed.” 6. The present case pertains to a period prior to 1st April, 2002, hence, the losses pertaining to exempted income cannot be disallowed. The question is, accordingly, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the short term capital loss on sale of mutual funds within one day after earning tax free dividend income thereon. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 870 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... As the office objections were not removed, all these appeals were dismissed pursuant to the order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. 4. These Notices of Motions have been taken out after the delay of more than 1200 days. The reasons given for the delay in the affidavits in support of the Notices of Motion are not convincing . Moreover, in the light of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, remittances to the non resident companies have already been made. 5. In these circumstances, condoning the inordinate delay of more than 1200 days would cause serious prejudice to the assessee. If the Revenue has suffered on account of total callousness on the part of the Income Tax Officer, it is for the Revenue to take appropriate action against the concerned Officer. We see no reason to condone the delay. 6. All the Notices of Motion are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal papers be consigned to the Record Department.
-
2011 (6) TMI 869 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... he issue here. The issue here is whether the fee paid is for the purpose of business or not. If it is in contravention of provisions of Excise Act, the Excise Authority will take appropriate action, but if the same is paid for business purposes, then the payment cannot be held as in genuine or held as not allowable in view of provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. It is further seen that even there is no contravention in paying the privilege fee as the fee is paid under section 24 of the Excise Act and the provisions of section 28, 29 are not applicable as they are on separate aspect. 32. We have gone through the other case laws, relied upon by ld. A/R and found that they also support the case of the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that privilege fee paid by assessee is allowable as business expenditure. Accordingly we direct the AO to allow the deduction to the assessee.’’ 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 868 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... account payee cheque out of his savings and agricultural proceeds. He has duly explained the source of income before the Assessing Officer. By issuing notice u/s 131 the Assessing Officer has examined Shri Ravindra Jain who had accepted the fact of advancing the loan and source of his income and the deposit in the bank account. Thus, not only the identity of the loan creditor is establish but also credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction has also been established. Thus, the assessee has discharged the primary onus casted upon him with regard to cash credit of ₹ 1 lac. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the orders of the lower authorities in making the addition of ₹ 1 lac and delete the same. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of learned representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 29t h June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 867 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee. The assessee used to make purchases from the wholesalers and credited to their accounts on receipt of the goods. The suppliers were debited to the assessee’s account the same day but the assessee did not credit their account for want of receipt of goods and many times the suppliers issued credit notes against the supplies made before the end of the financial year. We have perused the factual finding contained in para 4.5 of the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same, therefore, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. The appeal of the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 8. In cross objection no. 9/Ind/2010, the assessee has raised the approval of action u/s 148 of the Act. This ground was not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and dismissed as such. Finally, the appeals of revenue are dismissed. C.O. No.8/Ind/2010 is partly allowed and C.O. No.9/Ind/2010 is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 866 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... WDV brought forward from the earlier year. It was also submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the order under section 143(3) for A.Y 2003-04 continues to exist and has not been disturbed by any proceedings under the Act. We are therefore, of the view that it was not possible for the AO in the present assessment year to take a stand different from the one taken in the earlier assessment year. Having allowed the depreciation in the immediately preceding year it is not open to the AO to take different stand for the year under consideration. On this short ground, we direct that the depreciation claimed by the assessee should be allowed. In view of the above, we have not gone into the question whether the sums in question would be terms as intangible assets entitled to depreciation. For the reasons given above we allow the appeal of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 15th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 865 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar has erred in law by filing a belated appeal u/s.253. o p /o p 2. That it is wrong to hold that the order of CIT(A) was communicated on 17-8-2009. o p /o p 3. That the facts mentioned in Form No.36 are patently wrong and are challenged. o p /o p 4. That the observations of authority below are wrong and bad in law. o p /o p 5. Any other ground pressed at the time of hearing with permission.” o p /o p 7. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Registry of this Bench has not raised any objection regarding any delay in filing the appeal. The objection raised by the assessee is not tenable. Even otherwise also, the issue raised by the assessee is of academic interest and, therefore, requires no findings. o p /o p 8 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. o p /o p The order is pronounced in the Open Court on 8th June, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 864 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ing in view of the above decisions, we are of the view that the mistake, if any, is occurring in the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.1995 and though AO has passed subsequent rectification orders he has not made any corrections on the said issue but he resorted to rectify the mistake while passing the subsequent order passed u/s 251/154/154/143(3) of the IT Act. Under these circumstances we are of the view that AO is duty bound to make the rectification order within four years from the end of the financial year i.e. 1994-95. Since AO has passed rectification order u/s 154 on 10.03.2000 is barred by limitation as it is beyond four years from the original assessment order dated 29.03.1995. Therefore, we quash the orders of lower authorities, keeping in view of the provisions of section 154 (7) by treating the same as barred by limitation. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 863 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to loose the exemption. The assessee in the earlier as well as in the subsequent assessment years filed the audit report and got the exemption. The conduct of the assessee in earlier year and subsequent years would prove that due to the facts stated above there was delay in filing the audit report and the contention of the assessee was supported by the affidavit of Mohamad Iqbal Vohra (PB-4). The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rightly directed the AO to accept the audit report of the assessee and grant exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act. o p /o p We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. o p /o p 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-06-2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 862 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ved by the assesseee and it is impossible to state that the Assessing Officer has not considered the question of goodwill while completing the assessment. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the Assessing Officer had gone through the nature of the scheme of joint venture partnership and came to the conclusion that as per the joint venture agreement, the Canadian company had paid the goodwill amount. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the Assessing Officer had examined the Books of Accounts, the mode of receipt and accounting treatment of the payments. The Tribunal accordingly held that the decision of the Assessing Officer was based on due application of mind and therefore, the decision of the Commissioner of the Income Tax in invoking Section 263 was merely based on change of opinion, which is not sustainable in law. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, we find no reason to entertain the appeal. The same is dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 861 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the Tribunal below that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the share applicants did not have the means to make investment and that such investment actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee company. The receipt of share capital money had been duly recorded in the books of the assessee company and the payment of share application money was also duly recorded in the audited account of each of the share applicants. o p /o p We, thus, find that both the authorities below on the basis of the aforesaid materials on record were quite justified in deleting the aforesaid addition of ₹ 45,00,000/- done by the Assessing Officer. We are of the view that the order impugned does not suffer from any defect whatsoever and no question of substantial error of law arises justifying our interference. o p /o p The appeal is, thus, summarily dismissed. Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 860 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... und No.5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 19. On ground No.6 of the appeal, the assessee challenged the disallowance of ₹ 5,370/- representing penalty for delayed payment of PF. The learned CIT(A) noted that deduction is claimed in respect of penalty which is not allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of the IT Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee did not argue this ground. In the absence of any material on record, we do not find any justification to interfere with this ground of appeal of the assessee. Same is accordingly dismissed. 20. On ground No.7 of the appeal, the assessee challenged levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the IT Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that interest is consequential in nature. Accordingly ground No.6 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 21. No other point is argued or pressed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-06-2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 859 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s. The Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. reported in 2009 313 ITR 340 (Bom) which is in favour of the assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the above finding is perverse or contrary to the facts on record. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding on fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. o p /o p
............
|
