|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 587 Records
-
2011 (10) TMI 620 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s become sick and ending with the Assessment Year during which net worth of the said company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses. In other words, the deduction shall end with Assessment Year during which net worth of the company becomes positive. Thus upto the Assessment Year in which the net worth became positive of a sick company, the deduction is permissible. Only for Assessment Year subsequent to such Assessment Year in which the net worth had become positive deduction under clause (vii) is not permissible. 9. In view of the above provisions of law, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT was not justified in denying deduction to the assessee under clause (vii) to Explanation (1) of sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act for the year under consideration. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 14th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 619 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, the direction for pro rata distribution of telecommunication expenses was not called for, as per learned D.R. 21. Learned A.R. fairly agreed that in the assessee’s case, export turnover and total turnover were same and this, in other words, would mean that there were no local sales for the assessee. Therefore, we find that the direction given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) was unwarranted. In the assessee’s case, there is no question of any pro rata division of telecommunication charges between export sales and local sales. Therefore, ground No.3 of the Revenue assailing such direction given by ld. CIT(Appeals) to the A.O. is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 23. To summarize the results, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 is allowed, for assessment year 2005-06 is dismissed and appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06 is partly allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 14th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 618 - ITAT CHENNAI
Sale of land - addition by treating the sale of agricultural land to be capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) on the ground that it was within the distance of 8 kms from Municipal limits and thereby levying short term capital gains tax on the same - Held that:- In the remand report, the Assessing Officer submitted that as per the report received by him from the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Coimbatore, the agricultural land in question was 8.112 kms away from the municipal limits of Coimbatore municipality. In view of this, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that agricultural land in question was not a capital asset. Before us, the ld. D.R. could not point out any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any material brought before us to show that agricultural land in question was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed. Ground of appeal of the department is dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 617 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
TDS u/s 195 - Intelsat has made available technical knowledge/know-how/skill/experience to the assessee in respect of tracking, telemetry and command support of the satellite launched by the assessee - whether such services would squarely fall within the definition of ancillary services as definrd in the DTAA between India and USA? - whether the service rendered by a non-resident is a technical service? - Held that:- By virtue of cl. 7 of the Protocol, even though such a benefit is not available under DTAA with France the beneficial clause in the DTAA entered into by India with the USA applies in respect to the DTAA with France. Therefore, unless the technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes are transferred to the assessee, the liability to tax does not arise. The said favourable clauses in the DTAA read with protocol override the provisions of the IT Act in the matter of ascertainment of chargeability to income-tax and ascertainment of total income to the extent of inconsistency with the terms of DTAC.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the remuneration is only for the services rendered on a foreign soil. In lieu of consideration paid, the foreign company has not made available any technical knowledge to the assessee nor any technical knowledge is transferred to the assessee and therefore, the income derived out of rendering technical services is not liable to tax. If there is no liability to pay tax by a non-resident, there is no obligation cast on the assessee to deduct tax at source.
-
2011 (10) TMI 616 - ITAT JAIPUR
Transfer pricing adjustments - analysis undertaken by the appellant to determine arm’s length price for its international transactions pertaining to provisions of software development services to the AE - applying transfer pricing provisions to the appellant which enjoys tax holiday u/s 10B - selection of comparable.
-
2011 (10) TMI 615 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n case for the assessment year 2001-02, this Tribunal had in its decision dated 22.1.2009 in ITA No.2712/Mum/2007, following the order in the case of M/s Prince Plastics International Pvt Ltd (supra) held that assessee was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA/80IB of the Act considering the units as separate and independent. Therefore, we find that the ld CIT(A) was justified in giving relief to the assessee for both the assessment years. Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to show that there was any new unit in the impugned assessment years whereby a different look into the matter was warranted. Therefore, in views of the decisions of this Tribunal referred supra, we are of the opinion that the appeals of the Revenue have no merit”. 4 Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee 5 The appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 5th day of Oct 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 614 - ITAT KOLKATA
Revision u/s 263 - order passed by the AO erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue - C.I.T holding that receipt of share capital was not properly investigated - non entitled to the credit u/s. 88E while determining tax liability U/s. 115JB
-
2011 (10) TMI 613 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... wed u/s 14A. 10. In the result, we delete the disallowance of interest made u/s 14A and allow ground no.4 for assessment year 2006-2007 and ground no.3 for assessment year 2007-2008. 11. We now take up ground no.5 for the assessment year 2006-2007 and ground no.4 for the assessment year 2007-2008, which relate to disallowance of expenses u/s 14A by applying rule 8D. 12. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that ½ of the average value of investments was disallowed on the ground that these are expenses are relatable to the earning of income. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if 5 of the dividend income earned by the assessee is disallowed as expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income. Thus, we allow this ground in part and direct the Assessing Officer to disallow only 5 of the dividend income earned u/s 14A. 13. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. Order pronounced on this 14th day of October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 612 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mischief of section 269SS, as the same pertain to cash transaction only. However, the submissions did not find favour with the Assessing Officer and he levied the penalty of ₹ 3,45,13,627. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 9. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the coordinate benches of this Tribunal, copies of which, are placed on record, wherein, it has been held that journal entries do not result in any violation of provisions of section 269SS. We have also held that in case of journal entry, while considering the levy of penalty under section 271E that there is no case for levy of penalty. In view of this, and following the precedents, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied under section 271D. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 25th October, 2011
-
2011 (10) TMI 611 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... that point of view the expenses incurred by the assessee during this year are not on higher side. But the fact remains that the assessee has failed to submit the supporting bills in respect of the foreign travelling expenses incurred during the year. Therefore, in the absence of details, an ad hoc disallowance may be called for. Having regard to the total turnover of the assessee and extent of foreign travelling expenses incurred during the year as compared to earlier years, we find it just and proper to sustain the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1,00,000/-to cover up the personal expenses incurred by the partners while on business tour. Thus, the disallowance is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. The AO shall modify the assessment order accordingly. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2000-01 is dismissed and that for the Assessment Year 2004-05 is partly allowed. 26. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 25th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 610 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pute deduction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) 61.2 Accordingly, we decide this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 62 Ground no.7 is regarding restricting the disallowance to 2 of the dividend income. 63 This issue is common in both the appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue. We have already considered and decided this issue. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in terms of similar grounds. CROSS OBJECTION NO. 256/MUM/2011 64 The assessee has not raised any new ground in the cross objection; therefore, in view of our findings in the appeals of the revenue as well as of the assessee, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 65 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed and the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on the 12th, day of Oct 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 609 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s. The fact that AO did not initiate penalty proceedings in the cases of individuals on similar facts also makes the case of assessee HUF strong that no such action should have been taken in this case also. In the light of these peculiar facts of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fit case for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 14. Since the issues raised in all other cases, are identical, the facts and circumstances being the similar, we decide the appeals by following our decision in the case of Tarachand S. Kasat HUF vs. DCIT referred above, by setting aside the orders of ld. CIT(A) and deleting the impugned penalty of ₹ 50,000/- in each case. 15. In the result, IT(ss)A Nos. 226/Ahd/2011 and 228/Ahd/2011 for Asst. Year 2004-05 are dismissed and all other 19 appeals are allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 31.10.2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 608 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Cash credit - Held that:- As regards cash credits, the substantial issue is already restored to the file of the AO to verify the debit balance and for other two creditors the assessee did not get any proper opportunity of hearing in the matter. The assessment order is framed in the name of the Official Liquidator and despite this point was raised before the learned CIT(A), the claim of the assessee was not properly adjudicated. Considering the history of the assessee undergoing in litigations and further that the assessee has later on revived from winding up and further that assessment order was framed in the name of the Official Liquidator would prove that the assessee did not get fair opportunity of being heard in the matter. Considering Tribunal for assessment year 2000-01 dated 15-10-2010 we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore all the grounds of appeal to the file of the AO for reconsideration of the issue. The AO shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2011 (10) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... or pre-deposit as contained in the Stay Order No.796/2011-Ex, dated 1.8.2011. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2011 (10) TMI 606 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Criminal case - detention of detenu - the Detaining Authority is directed to set detenu – Shri Balwinder Singh, at liberty forthwith - detention order quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2011 (10) TMI 605 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Addition mentioned in the incriminating documents seized during search operations, particularly, disregarding statement of the assessee recorded under s. 132(4) - Whether, in law, in respect of hundies/promissory notes recovered and seized during the course of search the onus is cast on the AO to prove that the amount shown in such hundies/promissory notes was actually advanced by the assessee ? - Tribunal was justified in upholding CIT(A)'s order whereby the CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of facts and are not perverse, being correlated with each and every transaction. Thus, the issue is purely question of facts. No question of law, more so substantial questions of law, as aforestated, arise in the facts of the case.
-
2011 (10) TMI 604 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ion money was received by the assessee from its holding company not as trader, but to recoup the losses likely to be suffered by it. The amount was received by virtue of their relationship of parent and subsidiary company. These are voluntary payments arising out of personal relationship of parent and subsidiary company and not stemming from any business considerations. Therefore, the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Handicraft & Handloom Export Corporation (supra) and the ITAT in the case of Lurgi India (supra). The decisions relied upon by the Revenue are distinguishable on facts and hence not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the assessing officer. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 14th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 603 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ncurring the expenditure. Therefore, the expenditure has to be treated in the nature of current repairs. Under section 30(a)(ii) the expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure is not allowable as deduction. As discussed above, the assessee has incurred expenditure on current repairs and, therefore, it is allowable as deduction. The facts of the case are identical to the facts in the case of Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) wherein ITAT under identical situation has allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure. In view of the above facts, in our considered opinion, since no new assets or advantage of enduring benefit has come into existence, the expenditure incurred is to be treated as allowable as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) allowing the relief to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 602 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re holding the shares till date i.e., as on 24th October, 2011. A copy of the said certificate and affidavit was also given to the learned DR. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. It has already been mentioned that the shares are not issued at premium. The evidence relating to all the share applicants was filed before the Assessing Officer the details of such evidence have already been described in the above part of this order. Apart from that the assessee had also filed recent affidavits of all the share applicants. Those shares continue to be held by those share applicants till date. Keeping in view all these facts and the evidence filed by the assessee on record, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) vide which the aforementioned addition has been deleted. We decline to interfere. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 601 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that:- Assessing Officer has rightly reopened the assessment in assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and re-opening of assessment in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are not sustainable
Allowability of interest expenses under sec. 24(b) - Held that:- he utilization of funds or investment in the construction of the building by the assessee needs not to be explained through the deductive details available in the different balance sheet rather it should produce direct evidence exhibiting the source of fund and its utilization. Learned CIT(Appeals) has observed that assessee has adopted deductive reasoning for explaining its stand. In our opinion, it does not make any difference as to how one explain its position i.e. by deductive reasoning on inductive reasoning. One method enables the adjudication to arrive at fair conclusion by drawing inference from the maternal available on record. The other methods provide the external aid for the above object. The idea under both the methods to arrive at just conclusion, which is admissible in law. On due consideration of this logic, we are of the view that had these details were available then that would be an ideal situation and there may not be any controversy but can the department put the assessee under tax liability on the ground that why it used the funds borrowed by the partners for the construction purposes or whether the partners as well as the assessee must have used this amount for some other activities. The revenue is unable to collect any evidence demonstrating the other activities. As far as other aspects are concerned, there is no dispute between the department and the assessee. The interest expenses incurred by the assessee on the borrowed funds if used for the purpose of construction then deduction of such expenses will be admissible to the assessee under sec. 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The only dispute between the parties relates to the quantification of amounts used for the purpose of construction. On an analysis of the balance sheet, we are of the view that the assessee is able to demonstrate, utilization of funds for the purpose of the construction. Revenue authorities without specifying any reason refused to take cognizance of the balance sheet of the partners. In view of the above discussion, we allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee in all the assessment years and direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction of interest expenses with regard to current interest charges also.
Addition to the taxable income of the assessee on the ground that on retirement of partner, a capital gain has arisen to the assessee - Held that:- We allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee and held that no capital gain tax would be imposeable upon it on account of alleged allegation of distribution of assets.
............
|
