|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 865 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 690 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) - Held that:- Assessee during the year had own funds of ₹ 4.40 crores and interest from the borrowings ₹ 8.13 crores, in addition to current year profit of ₹ 75.00 lacs. In our view the payment of ₹ 27.91 lacs during the year is easily explained from own funds. Even the current year profit can easily explain source of such payment. We, therefore, see no reason of making addition. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition made.
-
2012 (5) TMI 689 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Whether notice u/s 142(1) issued after end of one year from the relevant assessment year is barred by limitation or not? - Held that:- CIT (A) was not correct in holding the issuance of notice u/s 142(1) to be ab initio void. Since the CIT (A) has decided the appeal on technical issue without going into merits of the case, we think it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT (A) and direct him to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2012 (5) TMI 688 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f any legal infirmity in the investigation, I find no substance in the petition and the petition deserves to be rejected. 19. So, far decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Nihal Khan (supra) and other such orders of other High Court are concerned, in view of discussion of the scheme of Section 80 of NDPS Act, under Chapter-V and chapter-IV of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the facts and circumstances of the case have no applicability on the subject matter of this petition and therefore do not require any further deliberation. 20. Upon consideration of overall merits of the case, neither the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge impugned in this petition nor the fair and impartial investigation carried out so far suffers from any illegality and accordingly, no case is made out to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition is hereby rejected accordingly. No cost.
-
2012 (5) TMI 687 - ITAT AGRA
Estimation of profit by applying 8% of Net Profit rate - Held that:- No good reason for estimating profit by applying lower rate than 8% as small assessee having turnover not exceeding ₹ 40 lakhs are legally required under section 44AD to disclose profit by 8%. We confirm the order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) where 8% profit rate has been applied for estimation of income. We find force in the submission of the assessee in the written submission that the interest income of ₹ 79,400/- is business income and the same need not be separately added in estimation by applying 8% profit rate. The interest income which is business income of the assessee is covered in the said estimation and separate addition is not required. Modify the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer not to include the interest income of ₹ 79,400//- in estimation of total income. The assessee gets relief of ₹ 79,400/-.
-
2012 (5) TMI 686 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... n any given particular date comes to ₹ 11,93,729/- also could not be controverted by the ld. counsel for the assessee. 36. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and after considering the elaborate discussions by the ld. CIT(A) we are of the considered opinion that the book results of the assessee cannot be accepted and resort to provisions of section 145 of the I.T. Act has to be taken. In our considered opinion the addition of ₹ 12.50 lakhs as against ₹ 1.00 Crores by the AO which was brought down to ₹ 15.00 lakhs by the CIT(A) would meet the ends of justice. The undisclosed income of the assessee is accordingly determined at ₹ 12.50 lakhs as against ₹ 15.00 lakhs by the CIT(A) and ₹ 1.00 Crores by the A.O. The grounds raised by the Revenue as well as the assessee are partly-allowed. 37. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly-allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 3rd May 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 685 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - taxability of income - DTAA - Held that:- The question of taxability of the income and the rate of tax was specifically examined and gone into in the original assessment proceedings. The assessee may not have disclosed the said receipt in the original return but the receipt was disclosed in the revised return and the aspect/ question of taxability/ exemption specifically considered. During the course of the original reassessment proceedings the entire transaction itself and the consideration paid under the said transaction were examined in depth. In the assessment order dated 30.03.2006, it was held that the fee for licensing the software to the Indian customers was taxable as royalty/ fee for technical services under Article 13 of DTAA and Section 9(i)(vi) and (vii) of the Act. The income was subjected to tax @ 10%. Article 7 and Section 44D was not invoked.
No new fact had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer after completion of the original reassessment proceedings. It is not shown or alleged that new facts which were concealed had come the notice of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, on reconsideration of the same material facts, has drawn a legal inference/ conclusion on the basis of his interpretation of the Act and DTAA. This cannot be a valid ground to initiate re- assessment proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (5) TMI 684 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dv. ORDER Issue notice. Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent. List for final hearing for disposal on 24.08.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 683 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The Tribunal in assessee’s own case from a regular assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 had considered the identical issue and remanded the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co.,Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
-
2012 (5) TMI 682 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ) Ltd. by the assessee. This ground is same as ground no. 5 for the assessment year 2002-03. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this ground of the assessee. 7. Ground no.6 is on the issue of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) on payment made to LMB Holdings Ltd. (Isle of Man) for purchase of films. This issue is the same as the issue at ground no. 6 for the assessment year 2002-03. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this ground of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. We now take up the departmental appeal in ITA No.3843/Mum/2008. 10. The sole issue is on deletion of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in respect of payment made to PanAmSat towards transponder hire charges. The issue being the same as ground no. 3 for assessment year 2002-03, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 28th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 681 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... issue of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) on payment made to LMB Holdings Ltd. (Isle of Man) for purchase of films. This ground is similar to ground no. 6 in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2002-03. Consistent with the view taken by us, we hold that the assessee has no liability to deduct tax at source u/s.195 of the Act and consequently no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(i). 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 11. We now take up the departmental appeal in ITA No.4098/Mum/208. 12. The only ground is the issue of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) on payment made to PanAmSat Ltd. This issue is similar to ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2002-03. Consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 28th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 680 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... legal ground and as all the facts are on record, we admit the same. The issue is disallowance u/s, 40(a)(i) of payment made to Advanced Satellite International Ltd. for play out charges. Similar issue arose in ground no. 4 for the assessment year 2002-03. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this ground of appeal. 8. The assessee has also raised another additional ground that it should be allowed carry forward and set off of losses. This issue is dismissed as infructuous as we have allowed the other ground of appeal of the assessee. 9. Ground no. 3(f) is on the issue of disallowance on payments made to advertising and collecting agents. The assessee’s case is that these were in the nature of trade discounts and not in the nature of commission. The CIT(A) in his order has not decided this issue. Thus, we set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced on the 28th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 679 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f consistency has to be applied. The same should have been applied in the assessment year 2004-05, where the assessee has changed the method of accounting in comparison to the earlier year as well as in the subsequent year. Since, there are decisions on both sides on this point, therefore, each case has to be decided on its own facts. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered view that the transactions of sale and purchase by the assessee was in the nature of investment in shares and not trading in shares. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities qua this issue”. 4. AR further submitted that above mentioned order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the department. 5. Respectfully following the orders of the Bombay High Court, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 678 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Intellectual property right services for the technology transfer - Held that: - the applicant were under bonafide belief that the service of technical transfer/technical know-how is a secret of their trade activity and is not registered as a patent and therefore they are not liable to service tax under Intellectual property right service and the same was brought in the knowledge of the department by filing the Service Tax Returns - even, if the applicant had paid the service tax, the same was entitled to credit, there is a revenue neutral situation - the applicant has made out a strong prima facie for waiver of pre-deposit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2012 (5) TMI 677 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... obvious that a holding company has a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would, in our opinion, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans”. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the loans advanced to the subsidiary companies were utilized by them for their business requirements and have not been utilized for the personal benefits of the individuals/directors. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds advanced as loan to subsidiary companies by the assessee. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) and uphold the same. Thus, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as devoid of any merit. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 3rd May, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (5) TMI 676 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s from the facts of the case that the assessee has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The addition is made based on the method of computing arms length price as per the provisions of the Act. The basic reason for the short fall of profit was due to increase in cost of raw materials purchased. The assessee had purchased raw materials from associated enterprises only to the extent of ₹ 4.60 Crores out of total purchases of ₹ 16.24 Crores. Thus, the assessee had purchased from the associated enterprises to the extent of 28.3 out of its total purchases of raw materials. From these facts it is apparent that the assessees has not concealed any particulars of income or have furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore we do not have any hesitation to uphold the decision of the Ld.CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-05-2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 675 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... umstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the Director of Income-tax(Exemption) is erroneous and it requires to be reversed. o p /o p 8. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention that we are not inclined to go into the redundancy of the application of the assessee for renewal in view of statutory amendment to the provisions of S.80G noted above, or the effect of the rejection of the assessee’s application, on the claim of the assessee for exemption under S.80G, in view of amendment to the provisions of S.80G of the Act noted above, since those aspects of the matter are of only academic interest in view of our decision on the merits of the issue, viz. validity of the reasons given by the Director of Income-tax(Exemption) while rejecting the said application and assessee’s eligibility for renewal under S.80G based on its application. o p /o p 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the Court on 30.5.2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (5) TMI 674 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowing the loss due to Exchange rate fluctuation to the extent of loan which was not paid during the year - Hld that:- Loss incurred on revenue side on account of foreign exchange fluctuation is allowable
Treat the reimbursement of CST as business receipt for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 10B.
Insurance claims received do not qualify for the exemption u/s 10B as they are cannot be held to be receipts, derived from the industrial undertakings.
Treat the refund as business receipt for the purposes of claim of exemption under section 10B.
Staff agreement deposit forfeited do not qualify for the exemption u/s 10B as these are not held to be receipts derived from the industrial undertakings.
Treat the refund as business receipt for the purposes of claim of exemption under section 10B.
Disallowing the Deduction u/s 35D in respect of Euro Issue - set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination in accordance with law, and after allowing opportunity to the assessee.
Disallowing the Interest attributable to Investments made by the company in dividend earning assets - Held that:- Remit the matter back to the file of the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. vs DCIT (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ).
Adding back provision for doubtful debts and advances while computing book profits u/s 115JB - Held that:- Adjustments cannot be made once the assessment is to be framed under MAT provisions, hence the addition made by the revenue authorities is deleted.
Exclude excise duty and sales tax from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC
-
2012 (5) TMI 673 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee, her claim for deduction under Section 80HHC was not found to be not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer himself has allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC but, he merely recomputed the quantum of the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC. Merely because the Assessing Officer has changed the quantum of the deduction permissible under Section 80HHC, it will not tantamount to either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee furnished incorrect, erroneous or false factual details. The Assessing Officer has recomputed the deduction on the basis of factual details as furnished by the assessee. In view of the above, we, respectfully following the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, cancel the said penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 672 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e additions and so also the contentions of the parties before us on this issue are identical to those considered by us while considering the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. Hence, for the detailed reasons discussed, hereinabove vide para 24 of this order, we set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities, deleting the additions in question. Grounds of appeal of the assessee on this issue are accordingly allowed 38. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07 are allowed. 39. To sum up, (a) Out of five appeals of the assessee, ITA No.767/Hyd/2009 for assessment year 2001-02 and ITA Nos.1436 to 1438/Hyd/2011 are allowed; and ITA No.1435/Hyd/2009 for assessment year 2003-04 is partly allowed; and (b) Both the appeals of the Revenue, being ITA No.798/Hyd/2008 for assessment year 2001-02 and ITA No.1500/Hyd/2011 for assessment year 2003-04 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 18th May, 2012
-
2012 (5) TMI 671 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ive of the export turnover. Therefore the formula for computation of the deduction under Section 10-A, would be as under Profits of the business of the undertaking X Export turnover Export turnover Domestic turnover Total turnover 3. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 9. From the above, it is clear that the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment dated 02.11.2011 of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case of M/s. Sitel Operating Corporation India Ltd., ITA No.153 of 2011 (supra). We therefore set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of May, 2012.
............
|
