|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 831 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or registration of such arrangements, when orally made, even if later reduced to writing. 20. Therefore, in our opinion following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maturi Pullaiah & Another Vs Maturi Narasimham & Others, we hold that as there is no transfer of assets in a family arrangement and the amount received by the assessee is also part of the family arrangement and not towards transfer of any capital asset, there can be no levy of capital gain tax. In a Family settlement there is only a readjustment of the pre-existing joint interest as separate interest and there is no transfer leading to liability to Capital gains. In the circumstances the order of the lower authorities assessing the amount received under a family arrangement as capital gains is erroneous and delete the addition and we allow the assessee’s appeal. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of April, 2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1076 - ITAT MUMBAI
Taxability of income of insurance companies - Profit on sale of investments - exemption was claimed in the computation of income as profit on sale of investments as per Rule 5(b) of the First Schedule - A.O. did not accept the assessee’s contention as in his opinion there was no provision in Rule 5(b) of First Schedule for reducing the profit from sale of investments disclosed in the annual accounts - CIT(A) confirmed not excluding the profit from sale of investments while computing the income.
HELD THAT:- We find that the issue raised in this ground now stands settled by the Tribunal in assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 etc, in assessee’s own case as held that the taxability of income of insurance companies does not extend to taxability of profits on sale of investments for the period assessment years 1989-90 to 2010-2011. Respectfully following the precedent we allow this ground of appeal.
Disallowance of expenses u/s.14A - assessee earned interest income from investment made in debentures / bonds and said interest was exempt from income tax u/s.10(23G) - CIT(A) reduced the disallowance - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal in assessee own case held that section 14A contemplates an exception for deductions as allowable under the Act u/s 28 to 43B. It has further been held that since section 44 is a special provision applicable to insurance companies, it is not permissible for the A.O. to travel beyond section 44 and First Schedule of the Income-tax Act. The resultant disallowance sustained by the learned CIT(A) was deleted by the Tribunal.
In the absence of any distinguishing feature having been brought to our notice by the ld. DR, respectfully following the precedent, we overturn the impugned order on this issue and order for the deletion of addition - This ground is allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1075 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... - allowed to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 5.1 The aforesaid decision has subsequently been followed by another Bench in the case of M/s Siddharth Corporation in ITA No.866/Ahd/2007 and in the case of M/s Gautam Enterprises in ITA No.867/Ahd/2007. 6 In the light of the view taken in the aforesaid decisions, including in the assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year, we have no option but to allow ground nos.1, 2 and 10 of the appeal. Since the claim of the assessee has been allowed in their favour, other ground nos.3 to 9 become academic in nature nor even any submissions were made before us by the ld. AR on these grounds. Therefore, these grounds become infructuous and do not survive for our separate adjudication. 7. No additional ground as having been raised in terms of residuary ground, accordingly, the said ground is dismissed. 8 In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 12 -04-2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1074 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfills all the following conditions, namely - (a) to (c) ………………….. Explanation defines infrastructure facility as under;- “(a) road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system;” The Tribunal took the view that installation of automatic traffic signal and pedestrian footbridge would be an integral part of road including a bridge. We do not find any fault with the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on Clause (a) of explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, the proposed question no. 1 is academic and, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal in respect of question no.1. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed. The stay application is disposed of. Let photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all formalities.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1073 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal u/s 378 - Whether the State Government (of Bihar) has competence to file an appeal from the judgment dated 18th December, 2006 passed by Special Judge, CBI (AHD) acquitting the accused persons when the case has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) - The charges were framed against Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav u/s 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’) that during the said period, he acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and on 31st March, 1997 he had been in possession of pecuniary resources of property in his name and in the name of his wife and children to the extent of ₹ 46,26,827/- which he could not satisfactorily account for. Smt. Rabri Devi was charged u/s 109 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act for abetting her husband in the commission of the said offence. The Court of Special Judge, CBI (AHD), upon conclusion of trial, vide its judgment dated December 18, 2006 acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against them. It is pertinent to notice here that as per CBI, the central government after considering the conclusions and findings of the trial court took a conscious and considered decision that no ground whatsoever was made for filing an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. On February 17, 2007 the state government, however, filed leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated December 18, 2006 before the High Court of Judicature.
HELD THAT:- In our opinion, the Legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from an order of acquittal inasmuch as the competent authority to appeal from an order of acquittal in two types of cases referred to in sub-section (2) is the central government and the authority of the state government in relation to such cases has been excluded. As a necessary corollary, it has to be held, and we hold, that the State Government (of Bihar) is not competent to direct its public prosecutor to present appeal from the judgment dated December 18, 2006 passed by the Special Judge, CBI (AHD), Patna. For the aforesaid conclusions, the reasons given by the High Court are not correct and the impugned order cannot be sustained.
The result appeals are allowed, the order dated September 20, 2007 passed by the High Court is set aside and the Govt. Appeal No. 1 of 2007 – State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad and others – presented before the High Court of Judicature at Patna is rejected as not maintainable.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al has merely followed its earlier order made in relation to assessment year 2000-2001. 3. Moreover, it is an accepted position between the parties that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this High Court in the case of Mahesana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 258 ITR 780, whereby the question has been answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. 4. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1071 - ITAT AGRA
Third Member Appointment - difference in opinion between the ld JM and the ld AM - Validity of order passed u/s 263 - receipt of gold ornaments and cash by the assessee through the "Will" - whether the order of the AO got merged with the order of the CIT(A) on the matter relating to the addition - claimed relief u/s 80-I - assessee has claimed that she has received a sum of ₹ 4,50,000 while the AO accepted only a sum of ₹ 4,00,000 and made the addition of ₹ 50,000 - AO accepted the validity of the Will. Subsequently, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 50,000 and has also accepted the validity of the appeal.
Main reasons for revising the order by the CIT were that the Assessing Officer failed to examine (a) whether the "Will" has been probated or not?, (b) whether the person who bequeathed the said amount and jewellery did so in terms of Hindu Succession Act? and (c) whether the said cash and jewellery were part of her "Stridhan" or self-acquired property which she could legally bequeath or was it part of HUF and did the said cash and jewellery factually exist?
The learned JM was of the view that the order of the AO had merged with the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, the CIT was not having any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263. Learned AM, on the other hand, took the view that the order of the CIT(A) has not merged with the order of the AO and it is the case where there had not been proper enquiry by the AO and, therefore, the order passed u/s 263 was valid one.
HELD THAT:- The word ‘matter’ is wider than the word ‘point’. Once a particular matter has been considered and decided in appeal and if any point relating to that remains unconsidered, it cannot be said that the subject-matter of appeal had not been considered and decided in such appeal. The subject-matter in appeal before the CIT(A) relates to the addition of ₹ 50,000 on the basis of the will of the mother of the assessee. A subject-matter may consist of number of arguments and number of points. If any point, in my opinion, has not been referred to by the CIT(A) in his order, it cannot be said that the matter relating to the addition on the basis of the Will has not been considered.
While computing the deductible amount from the taxable income the assessing authority is required to ensure that the profits and gains are derived from an industrial undertaking; such profits and gains are included in the gross total income of the assessee; and the allowance has to be made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of section 80-I.
Therefore, to contend that sub-section (1) of section 80-I has to be independently considered, i.e., independent of other sub-sections of section 80-I is not a correct proposition, especially when the provision itself says that it has to be in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section. The provision does not use the phraseology in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the sub-section but refers to the entire section, which includes sub-section (2).
When the deduction u/s 80-I was granted by the AO after disallowing a part of the claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), the appellate authority was duty-bound to examine whether the claim made by the assessee was in accordance with and subject to the provisions of section 80-I. The requirement of fulfilment of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I is therefore very much subject-matter of the appeal in relation to the income from warehousing which had been disallowed by the AO.
The subject-matter of the appeal since relates to the addition in the case of the assessee on the basis of the Will and since the assessee has, gone in appeal before the CIT(A) against the addition made by the AO on the basis of the Will, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) got merged with the order of the AO, on the addition made by the AO on the basis of the Will and in view of Explanation (c) to section 263(1), in my opinion, the CIT will not have any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 263, hence the order passed by the AO got merged with the order of CIT(A) on subject-matter of addition on the basis of the Will. Accordingly, in my opinion, the order of CIT should be cancelled.
Thus, ground as decided in favour of the assessee.
The learned Third Member has agreed with the view of the learned JM. Therefore, in view of the majority decision, the assessee succeeds in its appeal.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1070 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal returned findings of fact to the contrary. 4. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental representative could not challenge the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Nor could he advance any substantive argument in support of his appeal. The Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that the sum of ₹ 24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal observed that the cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. 5. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which are purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any interference and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1069 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from sale of shares - business income or capital gain - under which head the profit or gain on the sale of the shares/securities should be taxed? - shares are ‘stock-in-trade’ of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As perused the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee and as per the books of account, the assessee has treated the entire investment in the shares as an investment only and not as a stock in trade. Another important aspect to be considered here is the assessee is not a share broker nor he is having a registration with any Stock Exchange. Moreover, some scripts are held for more than five years and it is not a case of the A.O that there were any derivative transactions by the assessee nor is it a case of the A.O that there were transactions without any delivery.
In the present case, both the authorities have not disputed that the transactions are completed with the delivery. The intention of the assessee cannot be read from his mind but it reflects in its conduct, the way he treats the transactions. The assessee has not borrowed any money for investing in shares and used his own surplus funds and these facts have not been disputed by the A.O. The proposition has been accepted by the Board also in Circular No. 4/ 2007 that the assessee is entitled to maintain two portfolios.
It is true that the rule of res judicata is not applicable to the Income Tax Proceedings, but at the same time, it is also well settled principles that if there is no change in the facts, then, there should be consistency in the approach of the Revenue authorities while deciding the tax liability of the assessee.
The transactions of sale and purchase of the shares by the assessee cannot be treated in the line of trading in the shares nor it can be treated as an adventure in the nature of the trade.
We hold that the entire income from the sale and purchase of the shares is to be assessed under the head ‘capital gain ‘ as rightly declared by the assessee either Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) or Short Term Capital gain (STCG) depending upon the period of holding. We, therefore, direct the A.O to accept the capital gains declared by the assessee from the sale of the shares and accordingly, set aside the order of the Ld CIT(A).
-
2010 (4) TMI 1068 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... permitted to file such statement of objections within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It will also be open for the respondent department to ascertain the views or seek clarification if so necessitated, to be obtained from the concerned Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the State Government, as the case may be. All further proceedings including the consequential steps as contemplated under Ext.P2 shall be pursued only after deciding the question of eligibility for exemption and a speaking order shall be passed in this regard, which shall be communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the objections to Ext.P2 notices. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1067 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uo;s appeal by holding that the assessee had produced the pan numbers, confirmatory letters, returns of income, etc. in respect of the parties who had made the said investments. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had come to the conclusion that the preliminary onus, which was upon the assessee, had been discharged by him. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer stood deleted. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by the revenue, confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and found that the said share application money was substantiated by the assessee by providing all the necessary details as indicated above. The two authorities below, on findings of fact, held that the assessee was not liable to any addition on account of the said share application money. We see no reason to interfere with the said findings. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1066 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... penses which are necessary for the purpose of maintaining registered office of a company to continue its existence and to comply with the statutory obligations are allowable as business expenditure even if assessee is not carrying out any business activities in the relevant year because these expenditure are incidental to the business activities of the assessee company. In the present case also, we find that these expenses incurred by the assessee are such which are necessary for the purpose of maintaining registered office of a company to continue its existence and also to comply with the statutory obligations and hence the same is allowable as business expenditure and the resulting loss from business is rightly claimed for set off against income from house property by the assessee and hence we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect also. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in open court on 23.04.2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1065 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the assessment year 1991-92 and treated such expenditure as allowable expenditure under section 35(1)(vi) of the Act. 21. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show that there is any error in the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal, in this regard, is accordingly upheld. 22. So far as question No. (9) is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joint CIT v. Mandideep Engg. and Pkg. India (P.) Ltd. 2007 292 ITR 11 wherein it has been held that the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I are independent and the newly established industrial undertakings are entitled for deduction under both the sections independently. 23. The view of the Tribunal is inconsonance with the decision of the Apex Court, referred hereinabove. The order of the Tribunal is, accordingly, upheld. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as stated above.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1064 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... icate that both the assessee and the tax authorities were not sure of the purpose of disclosure. In that case, in view of the judicial precedents discussed in earlier paras, we are of the view that no credence could be given to the statement in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the disclosure. Hence, in the instant case, the Revenue is not entitled to place reliance only on the statement given by the assessee. Another pertinent point that should be noted here is that in the instant proceeding, being block assessment proceeding, the AO has to make the assessment only on the basis of material found during the course of search. It is an undisputed fact that in the instant case, the Department did not detect any material to suggest the availability of undisclosed income. In view of the above, we reverse the order of learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned amount of ₹ 12 lakhs. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1063 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds on payment towards office upkeeping - reimbursement of expenses - HELD THAT:- When there is no element of income and the payment is only as a reimbursement of expenses incurred by the payee, then no disallowance can be made u/s.40(a)(ia). In the case in hand, the AO has not given a finding that the expenses were for office upkeeping as revenue receipt in the hands of Reliance Energy Ltd. and not a pure reimbursement of expenses. Respectfully following the decision of CIT vs. Seimens Aktiongesellschaft [2008 (11) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Disallowance of traveling expenses - assessee has failed to produce verifiable vouchers and addresses - CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 10% to 5% - HELD THAT:- Since the traveling expenses are petty in nature and keeping in view the nature of the business of the assessee at the sites located in remote areas, it not always possible to obtain proper vouchers for the said expenditure. Even otherwise, when the expenditure has not been found as abnormal in comparison to the total turnover and income admitted by the assessee, then it is not justified on the part of the lower authorities to disallow certain percentage of the expenses which is ad hoc in nature. As per nature of the expenses as well as the business activities of the assessee, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted.
Disallowance of business promotion expenses - assessee has failed to produce verifiable vouchers - HELD THAT:- Since we have considered and decided the issue on traveling expenses in favour of the assessee, on the same reasoning, this issue is also decided in favour of the assessee and accordingly the disallowance made on this account is deleted.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1062 - ITAT DELHI
Undisclosed income detected at the time of survey - discrepancies in the books of account found and impounded at the time of the survey - AO rejected the books of account of the assessee and made the addition to the trading result declared by the assessee in the books - Whether the AO was justified in rejecting the books of account of the assessee? - HELD THAT:- The assessee failed to point out that amount of ₹ 20,000 received on 12th Sept., 2004 was accounted for in the books of account. we find that the assessee has merely given a fanciful and blunt explanation without the same being supported by any iota of evidence that dinner to be arranged by the assessee on 15th Dec., 2004 was ultimately cancelled. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the receipt against the said catering services rendered by the assessee to Mr. Kushaal has not been recorded in the books of account, and has been kept outside the books, and thus, the receipts have been suppressed by the assessee.
It is well-settled that when there is suppression of sales or receipts, the books of the assessee can be rejected and income can be estimated. It is of great importance that the details of all the sales and receipts should be verifiable and correctly recorded. The books can be rejected even if the some of the sales are found to be verifiable and the rest are not verifiable.
Therefore, we hold that the AO was justified in rejecting the books of the assessee and in estimating the income my making addition to the trading results declared by the assessee.
Quantum of reasonable addition - addition made to trading results - As assessee himself admitted in its letter that assessee was grateful to all the officers of the Department for extending their full support and co-operation to the assessee during and after the survey proceedings. The assessee has also stated in the aforesaid letter that the assessee shall be able to achieve the object of buying peace with the Department and ensure smooth sailing for it not only at the investigation stage but also at the assessment stage.
From the aforesaid averment made by the assessee in its letter it is fully established and proved that it is not the case where disclosure has been made either under coercion or pressure or because of any misunderstanding and/or mistaken reading of the document. It was never the case of the assessee that the assessee has misunderstood the contents of the various documents and papers found at the time of the survey and has wrongly declared the amount which was submitted after about two months from the date of the survey in the light of various documents and papers found at the time of the survey.
The assessee's conduct in not including the aforesaid sum in the light of the various documents and papers found at the time of the survey on which tax was also paid in advance, is not justified but is an unwarranted attempt to reduce its due and just tax liability.
It is also well-settled that once the books of account of the assessee are rightly rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act, the AO has to proceed to determine the assessee's income on the basis of material available on record and to the best of his judgment.
The fact that assessee has been indulging in suppressing sales of its business has been detected as a result of a survey conducted by the Department during the course of which various documents and papers were found and impounded indicating that all the transactions of receipts and payments were not recorded in the books of account submitted by the assessee to the Department. we, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made to the trading results declared by the assessee. This ground raised by the assessee is thus rejected.
Business promotion expenses - CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by observing that the assessee has filed only copy of accounts of business promotion expenses, and from the copy of accounts, it is noted that the some of the expenses are in the form of hotel and restaurant bills and have been incurred from credit card and while some expenses incurred in cash also, and, therefore, the assessee has not been able to justify that entire expenses - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the authorities below are unjustified in disallowing part of the total expenses incurred on account of business promotion expenses. The AO should have pointed out some of the instances in respect of which he was of the view that expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business, but the AO has not done so and, has disallowed the amount purely on estimate. In this view of the matter, we, therefore, do not find any justification in sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000 out of the business promotion expenses We, therefore, delete the disallowance.
Disallowance out of vehicle running and maintenance and depreciation - Addition made as expenses incurred for personal use - HELD THAT:- The present case is a case of private limited company, where the vehicles belonging to the company were also used by the directors. Even if the directors were using the vehicle for their personal use, insofar as company is concerned, the expenses are to be treated as being incurred for the purpose of business. If any personal benefit is accruing to the directors by use of vehicle for their personal purposes, the perquisite value could have been added as income in the hands of the directors. It is also to be noted that providing a car to the director by the company cannot be said to be on non-business account.
Moreover, the books of account of the assessee have been rejected and the addition has been made by the AO in the trading result, and, therefore, there would be no justification to make further disallowance out of the expenses claimed in the P&L a/c when the addition has already been made by the AO. We, therefore, delete this addition sustained by the learned CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1061 - ITAT AGRA
Third member appointment - difference between the ld' JM and the ld' AM - addition u/s 68 - cash credits unexplained - JM confirmed the impugned deletion made by CIT(A) while the learned AM upheld the addition made by the AO - HELD THAT:- The assessee has given the complete addresses. The summons were duly served on these parties. AO had drawn an inference against the assessee and made the addition without enforcing the attendance of the parties to whom the summons were issued and duly served. AO even did not give an opportunity to the assessee that these parties did not appear even after the service of the summons but made the addition.
As per me AO was bound to give opportunity to the assessee before taking the adverse inference against the assessee. Once the summons have duly been served on the parties, the identities of the parties are duly proved. AO has not done anything except serving summons so that the attendance of the parties could be enforced. Even the assessee was not made known about the non-appearance of the parties. T
AO was duty bound to give opportunity to the assessee before drawing an inference against the assessee. The case of the assessee is duly covered by the decision of Nathu Ram Premchand’s case[1962 (8) TMI 81 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. - AM has not distinguished the facts of the case with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchand (supra) while confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Once the AO has not given opportunity to the assessee for the 3 creditors for which the assessee asked to issue summons, the inference cannot be drawn against the assessee. The summons were duly served. Under these facts, the assessee has discharged his onus what can be expected from. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and the learned JM was correct in law in holding that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee.
Unrecorded investments for purchase of goods - JM confirmed the action of the CIT(A) in deleting addition while the learned AM confirmed the addition - HELD THAT:- From the copy of account, as noted that against all the transactions relating to the assessee, the bill numbers are duly mentioned but in respect of the transactions which the assessee has denied, M/s. Narain Food Products has not mentioned any bill number but has shown the draft, bank etc. Thus no addition can be made merely on the basis of the evidence procured by the third party unless and until that party is put to the assessee for cross-examination, specially when the assessee has categorically denied the transaction. Statement relied on by the Revenue itself does not disclose the bill number through which transaction is entered into. It only contains ‘through drafts etc.,’ only. Therefore, this evidence, cannot be a valid evidence to make the addition. Once the assessee had denied the transaction, the Assessing Officer was bound to adduce the evidences for the rebuttal of assessee - AO has not done so. Therefore, under the facts of the case, I agree with the learned JM deleting the addition.
The matter will now go before the regular Bench for deciding the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1060 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... at the point of time the assessee exercised his option to set off the balance against the central excise liability and not before. The Tribunal accordingly restored the issue to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination in the light of observations made above and with a direction to ensure that there was no double deduction firstly, at the time of giving effect to sec.145A and secondly at the time of final exercise of option for adjustment of modvat account. The situation this year is identical and no distinguishing features were brought to our notice by the ld. DR. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT A and restore the matter to the file of the AO to pass a fresh order after necessary examination in the light of decision of Tribunal for A.Y 1999-2000 supra and after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of April, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1059 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... dence to prove the stand of the assessee has been brought on record. The assessee had also surrendered additional income of ₹ 10 lacs in Assessment Year 2005-06 on account of sundry credits, repairs to building and advances to staff, which being relatable to business carried on by assessee was included as income from business. However, in respect of cash found during survey, which was not reflected in the books of account, no source was declared by the assessee and in the absence of nature of source of cash being proved, the same is not assessable as income from business. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in including the additional income as deemed income u/s 69A of the Act and not allowing the benefit of the business losses determined against the said deemed income. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed 11. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30 t h day of April,2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1058 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition made on account of investment in land - real owner of land - certain incriminating documents were found containing details of transactions of land entered into with land owners and builders - HELD THAT:- The land situated at Thaltej Char Rasta has been sold by the assessee to Shri G.C. Patel through Shri Manoj Vadodaria, there is no material on record to indicate that the said land in fact belongs to the assessee. Though the AO has placed reliance upon the statements of Shri Manoj Vadodaria and Shri G.C. Patel for the purpose of taxing the amount in the hands of the assessee, despite specific request being made by the assessee for cross-examining both the said persons, the AO has not permitted the assessee to cross-examine them.
In the circumstances, no reliance could be placed upon the statements of the said persons as the respondent assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The statements made by the aforesaid persons would have no evidentiary value and as such, would not be admissible in evidence. Further, though the said Shri Manoj Vadodaria has stated that he has paid ₹ 60 lakhs to the assessee on behalf of one Shri G.C. Patel, the said amount has not been taxed in the hands of Shri G.C. Patel. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced to indicate that any transaction in relation to the land in question has actually taken place.
Tribunal has rightly found that the basis for making the addition in the case of the assessee is merely a bald statement of Shri Manoj Vadodaria, which is not corroborated with any documentary evidence found at the time of search, either in the case of Shri Suresh A. Patel or Shri Manoj Vadodaria or the assessee. No plea to the effect that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any perversity has been raised.
Tribunal having based its conclusion on findings of fact recorded by it after appreciation of the evidence on record, it cannot be stated that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity while holding that there was no justification for making the disputed addition in the hands of the assessee and directing deletion thereof. Besides it is not the case of the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated on account of any perversity. Decided in favour of the assessee.
............
|
