|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.” In view of the above, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) was fully justified in cancelling the penalty. We, therefore, uphold his order and dismiss the appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 6.4.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1391 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 7,47,000/- as interest on the said investment during the AY 2003-04 and the same was assessed as ‘income from other sources’. No interest was received thereafter and the same was accepted by the AO and no disallowance was made during the AY 2004-05. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the AO is not justified in disallowing the interest of ₹ 10,93,754/- in respect of the investment made by the appellant in M/s Prithvi Developers. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the disallowance.” We are in full agreement with the above findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and find no infirmity in his order in deleting the disallowance of interest of ₹ 10,93,754/-. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and reject the Ground of appeal taken by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of April 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1390 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d writ petitions are almost identical, they shall be heard together by the High Court. 10. It shall also be open to the parties to request the appropriate Bench after allotment for early hearing. We also request the High Court to hear the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records of this case. 11. So far the amount of ₹ 13,19,11,404/- (Rupees thirteen crores nineteen lakhs eleven thousand four hundred and four only), which was deposited by MRF in terms of order of this Court dated 27.1.2009 in SLP(C) No. 909 of 2009 is concerned, the said amount shall continue to remain with the Department as deposit till the matter is finally decided by the High Court. The liberty is also granted to the parties to apply to this Court for appropriate orders, if there be any occasion for the same, but only after October 31, 2011. 12. Civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order and observations.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1389 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... der Chapter VI A. The tribunal also held that the business losses of non eligible units cannot be set off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 10A for the purpose of determining the deduction allowable under section 10A. The tribunal further held that decision will be applicable only in case where there was only one eligible undertaking under section 10A. The case of the assessee is identical as in this case also there is only one unit for deduction under section 10A and there are non 10A units who have brought forward losses. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the special bench (supra) we hold that deduction under section 10A in respect of the 10A unit has to be allowed before setting off the brought forward losses of non 10A unit. We accordingly set aside the order of CIT(A) and allowed the claim of the assessee. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. Order was pronounced in the open court 20.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1388 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... upon. We f ind that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) whi le adjudicat ing a simi lar claim concluded as under “This position in law is well-settled. After 1st April,1989 it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee……...” 5.1. In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in thei r aforesaid decision in TRF Ltd.(supra) and indisputably debts having been wr it ten of f in the books of accounts in the year under considerat ion, apparently the amount of ₹ 11,81,505/- is admissible deduction in terms of provisions of sec. 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. Therefore, ground raised by the assessee is allowed . 6. No other plea or argument was made before us. 7 In the result , appeal is al lowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 8-4-2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1387 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tional behind the same. The Tribunal also rightly recorded that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any specific defect in the vouchers and there was no finding that any expenditure was not found to be genuine or not relating to the business. On this ground, the disallowance was rightly held. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1386 - ITAT MUMBAI
Nature of income received from letting out the terrace for putting up mobile towers by the telecom companies - HELD THAT:- In present case the assessee has only let out the terrace and the hoarding have been put up by the telecom companies and therefore rental income has arisen from letting out of the terrace and not from letting out of hoarding or towers. The case of the assessee is covered by the decision of the tribunal in case of M/s.Pinto’S Park View Premises Co.op. Housing Society Ltd and in case of Satyam Shivam Sundaram CHS Ltd. Therefore respectfully following the said decisions we set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee.
Deduction of maintenance charges paid - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is not clear whether the rent fixed by the assessee was inclusive of any charges payable for common serviced provided by the society. We therefore restore the issue to the file of AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination in the light of observations made above and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Nature of income from share transactions - HELD THAT:- In the present case the assessee has been frequently purchasing and selling shares and the sales in all cases have been made after holding the shares for less than 3 months and the overall profit earned has also been small clearly suggesting that the assessee had been selling the shares motivated by profit. In our view, on the facts of the case, the income arising from sale and purchase of shares within the three months period has to be treated as business income and the balance as capital gain. Hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A).
-
2011 (4) TMI 1385 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s followed ‘Jaipir Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.’ (supra). Even otherwise, it is trite law that nothing can be added to or subtracted from the bare provisions of a section of a statute, unless the context is shown to be otherwise. The legislature chooses its words deliberately and specifically. The expression implied in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, is “payable” and not “paid”. In the present case, the commission involved undisputedly stands paid. Also, as observed in ‘Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.’(supra), section, 40(a)(ia) imbibes a legal fiction and it needs to be construed strictly. 13. In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee is found to be justified and is accepted as such. 14. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is cancelled and the disallowance of commission paid, amounting to ₹ 7 lakhs is deleted. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 25.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1384 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... alidity of reassessment proceedings on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). As already pointed out that the said decision was later on considered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.L.M. Royal Touch Airlines Vs. ADIT (supra) and it was opined that the view taken in Consolidated Photo was contrary to the full bench decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) and hence could not be relied upon. Similar view has been expressed in the decision of CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd. Therefore, in our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings and his order on this issue is reversed and set aside. The cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 13.4.11
-
2011 (4) TMI 1383 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Computation of Income from House Property u/s 23(1)(c) - Fair Market value of Vacant portion - Assessee's property remained vacant for not working of the lift so no income was earned - As per CIT(A), assessee is allowed 30% deduction u/s 24, hence ALV of property is taken as ₹ 73241
HELD THAT:- It is noticed that claim of assessee was it made all the efforts to let out the property, but the same could not be let out because the property was situated at 5th floor and the lift was not working.
In a similar issue, in the case of PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P.) LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 10, MUMBAI [2007 (5) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI], it was held that during the whole year, the assessee made continuous efforts to let out the property and under these circumstances, this property could be called to be let out property. Since the property had been held to be let out property, its annual letting value could only be worked out as per Section 23(1)(c) and since the rent received or receivable from the said property during the year was nil the same was to be taken as the annual value of the property in order to compute the income from house property"
Therefore, we are of the view that since the rent received or receivable from the property in question during the year was nil, the same was to be taken as the annual value of the property in order to compute the income from house property as provided in Section 23(1)(c). We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A)
-
2011 (4) TMI 1382 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... es to hold that the payment made for hired vehicles is a sub- contract payment is not correct and not based on relevant considerations. Hence, it cannot be said that the payments made for hired vehicles would fall in the category of payment towards a sub-contract with the lorry owners. In that case the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, as per the provisions of s. 194C(2), on the payments made to the lorry owners for lorry hire. Consequently, the provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) shall not apply to such payments. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by plethora of decisions as cited at the bar. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 21st April, 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1381 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. 318 ITR (AT) 268 (Mum) and deleted the disallowance. o p /o p 3. After hearing both the parties, we hold that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Engle Broking Ltd. 35 SOT 457 (Mum). Respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. o p /o p 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 8th day of April, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (4) TMI 1380 - ITAT DELHI
|
Claim of depreciation on LAN, WAN, ATM etc at 60% as against 25% - HELD THAT:- In the present case, we are concerned about the depreciation on LAN, WAN, ATM equipments. During the year under consideration, the assessee has purchased certain equipments in the form of LAN, WAN, ATM etc. apart from computer and other related items. It is not in dispute that LAN, WAN, ATM equipments cannot be used without the computer. In the light of the view, we direct the AO to allow depreciation at the rate of 60% on LAN, WAN and ATM equipments.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
|
-
2011 (4) TMI 1379 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e Revenue - “Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in accepting the assessee’s claim under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the profit derived from sale of shop holding that nowhere there is any contemplation for restricting the benefit only to residential units and not to the shops etc. even though section 80IB(10) refers only to residential units and the amendment including sub-clause (d) in respect of shops and commercial establishments ws introduced in the said section with effect from 1st April, 2005 i.e. from AY 2005-06 and has no retrospective application.” 5. As the order of the ITAT which was followed by the CIT(A) was upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, there is no need to modify the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, Revenue grounds are rejected. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 7th April 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1377 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the Assessing Officer. We are, therefore, of the view that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have allowed an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer to examine the dates on which the amount has been recovered by the Government of Gujarat by way of adjustment from the grants given the same allowable under section 43B of the I.T. Act. Similarly, whether the compounding fees have been paid prior to filing of the return also needs verification. In case, both have been paid prior to filing of return of income, in that event, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same. Therefore, for the purpose of limited verification, the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer, who will make the necessary verification, after giving necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as partly allowed. The Order pronounced in the Court on 08.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1376 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to ₹ 1,29,775/- o p /o p The computation of long term capital gains is as below o p /o p Sale proceeds ₹ 51,81,300 o p /o p Less indexed cost ₹ 3,19,500/- o p /o p Cost u/s 48(1) ₹ 1,29,775 /- ₹ 4,49,275 o p /o p Gross long term capital gain ₹ 46,32,175 o p /o p Less Deduction u/s 54 ₹ 42,18,200 o p /o p Net long term capital gain ₹ 4,13,975” o p /o p The AO is directed to recompute the long term capital gain as mentioned above” o p /o p 4.3 As evident from the findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee produced relevant record in support of the claim of the expenditure. Nothing has been brought before us contrary to the finding of he CIT(A). Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). o p /o p 4.4. The grounds of appeal no.2 is dismissed. o p /o p 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed. o p /o p Pronounced in the Open Court on 29th April, 2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (4) TMI 1375 - ITAT DELHI
Claim of the assessee for renewal of exemption u/s 080 - educational institution - the assessee is running various educational institutions which are also recognized by the Government bodies and Universities. It was continuously enjoying exemption u/s 080G and for renewal of same, an application was filed. CIT has refused to grant renewal of exemption u/s 80G.
HELD THAT:- The certificate granted to the assessee u/s 012A treating it as charitable institution is subsisting and has not been shown to have been withdrawn till date. If it is so, then, in our considered opinion, renewal of exemption u/s 080G(5) could not be denied to the assessee and the case relied upon by Ld. AR and reproduced in the above part of this order fully supports such conclusion. Therefore, we find no justification in rejection of the claim of the assessee unless it is shown that the charitable status granted to the assessee by the certificate issued u/s 012A has been withdrawn. Therefore, we direct Ld. DIT (E) to grant the renewal to the assessee u/s 080G.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1374 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pital Regional Electronics Pvt. Ltd. as share application money. The CIT(Appeal), on that ground, deleted the addition as it was not loan or advance. The ITAT has upheld the same. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT(Appeal) as well as the ITAT. More particularly when we take note of the fact that the CIT(Appeal) has stated that this amount of share application money cannot be construed as loan or advance and hence would fall beyond the definition of Section of 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1373 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 80IB - Commercial Area - Assessee was engaged in the construction of two buildings known as ‘Amurt Dham’ and ‘Vidhi Complex’ - As per AO, in Project Vidhi Complex there was commercial area and since it was not a building project in the sense consisting of only buildings for residential purposes, the deduction was not to be allowed - Assessee contended there is no commercial area in vidhi complex but in Amrut Dham project for which deduction is not claimed
HELD THAT:- AO will verify the sanctioned plan to find out if the Project Vidhi Complex has any commercial area.The fact that commercial area in the form of shops exist in the buildings Amrut Dham which is part of the same sanctioned layout, but not forming part of the housing project Vidhi Complex, for which deduction u/s.80-IB(10) is claimed will not in any manner vitiate the claim for deduction u/s.80- IB(10).
Decision of SAROJ SALES ORGANISATION. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER. [2008 (1) TMI 420 - ITAT BOMBAY-E] supports the view that the existence of commercial area for the project for which deduction u/s.80-IB(10) is claimed alone should be seen though commercial area is built in the same sanctioned layout but in a different project. On verification, if commercial area is found to exist in the project Vidhi Complex AO will also verify if such area is within the permitted limits as laid down in Sec.80-IB(10).AO is accordingly to directed to verify the facts in this regard and while considering the claim for deduction u/s.80-IB(10)
Total area of the plot on which the project was constructed - Condition for allowing deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act is that the project is on the size of a plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre - whether the area given for the purpose of forming DP road has to be excluded or included for the purpose of calculating the size of the plot on which the housing project has been constructed? - CIT(A) held plot is less than one acre, Also, project is not sanctioned by KDMC, thus not eligible for deduction - HELD THAT:- We find that in the case of UMIYA ENTERPRISES VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3 (3) , KALYAN (W) [2010 (2) TMI 1187 - ITAT MUMBAI] has considered this issue, wherein it was held that there is no condition in the clause (b) of Section 80IB (10) that recreation area has to be excluded while examining whether the plot is of the size of one acre or less. For the purpose of clause (b) of section 80IB(10), the plot area has been taken at 4189 sq. metres, if not at 4600 sq. metres, even on this basis, the size of the plot is more than one acre. In our opinion, the CIT(A) committed an error in simply excluding 656.75 sq.metres from the area of 4600 sq.metres without appreciating that the exclusion is only for the purpose of D.P. Road which does not reduce the size of the plot as a whole.
In view of the decision of the Tribunal referred above we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue has to be reversed. We direct accordingly. Assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 10 IB(10) of the Act subject to the verification of the existence of commercial area in the project Vidhi Complex. The fact that the commercial complex exists in the Amurt Dham Project would not be relevant for denying the claiming of the assessee for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act for the Project Vidhi Complex.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1372 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... that at the time of original assessment the assessee has disclosed all particulars regarding share capital money. A.O. had also obtained confirmation from the investors by sending letter u/s 133(6). In the reasons recorded there is no mention that assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of material facts. The reopening was done merely on the basis of information received from investigation wing. As per ratio emanating from above said Jurisdictional High Court decision, on the facts and circumstances of the case reopening is not valid. Hence we hold that the reopening was not valid. 11. Revenue’s Appeal - Since we have quashed the reassessment on jurisdictional ground, adjudication of revenue’s appeal on the merits of the case have become academic and the same are not being dealt with. 12. In the result the assessee’s Cross Objection is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is treated as infructuous. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.4.2011.
............
|
