|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1260 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1070 - ITAT JODHPUR
Deduction of tax at source (TDS) for payments made to RSAMB for the construction and repair work - Held that:- Decision of Jodhpur Bench rendered in the similar case [2011 (12) TMI 598 - ITAT JODHPUR] wherein held the funds so provided by the KUMS to Agricultural Produce Marketing Board are not refundable but are to be utilized for the specific purposes. The contribution made by KUMS to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board is an application of income. The contracts if any are made by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board with the parties, therefore, there is no case of any deduction of tax at source by the assessee, moreover, in the case of the trust or society registered u/s 12A of the Act, the profit is to be computed on the basis of the commercial principles. The income is not be computed under different heads. Hence the provisions of Section 40a(ia) are not applicable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1069 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 29/03/2006 is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act and, hence, the same is to be treated as invalid return and no cognizance can be given to the above return and hence that the AO has duly considered and alleged the same as return filed out of time is not correct in as much as the order u/s 154 clearly states that the order u/s 143 dated 29/03/2006 for the year under consideration was passed after taking into consideration all the facts putforth regarding the above issues, which were considered during the assessment proceedings and the order was finalized, which could not be the case if the returns were treated as non-est. 23. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT is correct and the M.A. filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 24. In the result, the M.A. filed by the revenue is dismissed. 25. To sum up, both the M.As. filed by the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1068 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ect on the profit of the company. Being convinced with these submissions and following the first appellate order on identical issue for the assessment year 2006-07, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. 5. Having gone through the order dated 31st January,2012 of the Tribunal (supra) for the assessment year 2006-07 in the case of assessee, relied upon by the Ld. AR, we find that an identical issue under similar facts has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. In other words the first appellate order for the assessment year 2006-07 on an identical issue following which the first appellate authority has allowed the appeal on the issue in favour of the assessee, has been approved by the Tribunal vide said order dated 31.1.2012. Under these circumstances we do not find infirmity in the first appellate order. The same is upheld. In the result ground raised is rejected. 6. Consequently appeal is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 26th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1067 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ady declared in the hands of the said partners which again was accepted by the Department. Having regard to all these facts of the case as recorded by the learned CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order which have remained uncontroverted/unrebuted by the learned DR, we are of the view that the source of jewellery in the hands of the partners of the assessee firm was duly explained and the said jewellery having been introduced by the partners in the assessee firm in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2003-04, addition u/s 69 or 69A on account of the said jewellery treating the same as unexplained cannot be made in the year under consideration. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 17th day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1066 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... age of stock when a comparison was made with the book stock and the stock found at the business premises of the assessee. Such short stock could only be deemed as sales made outside the books. Parties before us admit that investment in the purchase of goods dealt by the assessee is duly accounted for in the books of account. That being so, entire amount of sales could not have been brought to tax. It is only the gross profit margin on the sales effected outside the books by the assessee, could be alone treated as his income. We, therefore, direct the AO to apply the gross profit margin as declared by the assessee 23 on the sales of ₹ 2,98,629/-. The addition to that extent stands sustained and balance of the addition is directed to be deleted. 8. Ground No. 4 has not been pressed. The same has stands dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed as announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 11-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1065 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in the remaining months nor could any addition be made towards suppressed production in those months. Since the addition has been made by the A.O. without bringing any concrete material on record to show that assessee has received job work charges more than what has been recorded in his books of account, the addition cannot be sustained. We further find that the A.O. has not even made any enquiries from the persons who have made payments to the assessee to ascertain as to whether or not there has been any suppressed production on the part of the assessee. We further find that on similar facts the Benches of this Tribunal in various cases have held that addition is not sustainable. Since the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decisions of the Tribunal on the issue, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby confirmed. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1064 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Del/2004 dtd.11.05.2007) he held that assessment was invalid because of invalid service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Since the assessment was held to be invalid, he did not deal with the merits of the additions made in the Assessment Order. All the remaining grounds were not considered on this technical point and same were treated as dismissed for statistical purposes. However, he dealt them on merits also and dismissed the same. 7. Before us, DR as well as the AR made the same submissions that were made for the AY.2003-04. From the facts available, it is clear that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued to/ served upon the assessee in time, for the AY under consideration. Hence, Assessment Order passed in pursuance of the said notice is held to be against the provisions of law. Upholding the order of the FAA, we reject the appeal filed by the AO. Appeal filed by the AO, for the AY. 2005-06, stands dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1063 - ITAT MADRAS
Double Taxation Relief in respect of the income from Bangkok branch - taxability of income under section 244A - provision of bad and doubtful debts -
-
2012 (10) TMI 1062 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the case, we are of the opinion that order passed by the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. He has rightly relied upon the case of Reliance Petro Chemicals (supra).We are of the opinion that deletion of penalty by him is fully justified. Details filed by the assessee-company with regard to four items discussed in para No.3 was result of a crime committed upon the assessee-company. In these circumstances Grounds of Appeal filed by the AO stand rejected.” As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the case of M/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. decided by the Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the said case and uphold the impugned orders of the learned CIT(Appeals) cancelling the penalties imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c). 6. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of Oct., 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1061 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that if the interest free funds are available to an assessee sufficient to meet with investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest free funds available. In the present case before us considering the finding of co-ordinate Bench and of the CIT (A). it can be presumed that assessee was having sufficient funds for investments.
In view of these facts and respectfully following the decision of High Court we are of the view that in the present case no interference is called for in the order of CIT (A) with respect to the disallowance pertaining to disallowance of interest amounting to ₹ 15,50,415/-. With respect to the disallowance of ₹ 1,39,125/-on account of administrative expenses, the factual position is that the assessee has stated it has not incurred any administrative expenditure A.O. has also not given a finding to the effect that the assessee has incurred expenditure towards exempt income.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1060 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tion for payment by Mr. R.K.Bavasa to the assessee. Thus the amount received by the assessee is not without any consideration. Therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(v) of the Act were not applicable. In that view of the matter we hold that the receipts by the assessee from Mr. R.K.Bavasa cannot be treated as income under section 56(2)(v) of the Act. The additions made by the AO are directed to be deleted. In view of the decision on the main provision we have not dealt with the other arguments regarding applicability of the exceptions set out in section 56(2)(v) of the Act.” 8. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, rejected. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 17-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1059 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. in charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 30. Ground No.1 is similar to ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. For the reasons given by us in that year, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 31. Ground No.2 is similar to ground No.3 of assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. For the reasons given by us in that year this ground is dismissed. 32. Ground No.3 is similar to ground No.6 of assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. For the reasons given by us in that appeal this ground of the assessee is allowed. 33. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 31.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1058 - ITAT PUNE
Whether expenditures incurred by the assessee are "fringe Benefits" u/s 115WB(2) - expenditures like Entertainment, Auditors Travelling, Driver Salaries etc. - Held that:- the expenses prescribed therein are liable to be considered as fringe benefits only to the extent the same are incurred in consideration for employment - the entertainment expenses have been incurred for guests of the company - Auditors are not employees of the assessee
FBT on salary paid to driver - salary paid to a driver is taxable in his hands as Salary income and thus do not fall under of the provisions of section 115WB - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1057 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act - Held that:- the money advanced by the assessee to M/s. Agarwal Steel was towards purchase of steel - made trade advances, which are adjusted against the purchases made during the year - it is evident that the money advanced by the assessee to M/s. Agarwal Steel is not an interest free loan, but a trade advance - Decided in favor of assessee
Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) - whether TDS is applicable - Held that:- The amount has been paid by the assessee during the relevant previous year - no disallowance could be made under S.40a(ia) of the Act, in view of the Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transports (supra)- Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1056 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e has not accrued, it could neither be brought to tax nor deduction in its respect claimed by, or allowed to, the assessee. The same though is crucial in the overall context of the case, inasmuch as only the real income, since accrued, can be assessed. Further, the value of the closing WIP, as assessed, shall be adopted as the opening WIP for the following year (also refer para 4.3). Also, as this is the first year of construction, and some qualifying conditions u/s. 80IB(10) are subject to satisfaction over time, which has since elapsed, the AO shall also, if not already so verified, i.e., while framing the assessment for any succeeding year(s), satisfy himself as to the satisfaction of those conditions, being, principally, though not limited to, the completion of the project within the stipulated time period, issuing definite findings in its respect. We decide the second issue accordingly. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1055 - ITAT MUMBAI
Distribution expenses - Whether business expenses u/s 37(1) - Held that:- assessee submitted the statement showing complete details of vouchers no. cheque no. date and name of the party and amount paid - AO has not brought on record any material to support that the expenses have not been incurred by the assessee - where original return had already been accepted u/s.143(1) before the search had taken place, adhoc disallowance made by AO is not justified - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1054 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest u/s 14A - legal validity of addition made in the assessment under section 153A - Held that:- time period for issue of notice had expired before date of search - Addition can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search - here the disallowance of interest was not based on seized material and therefore no assessment under section 153(3) - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- AO did have jurisdiction and disallowance had to be considered on merit - Tribunal held that the borrowed funds could not be held to be utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as same were invested in the company with which the assessee had no business - disallowance of interest is confirmed - Decided against the assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions of Section 158BD applied to the assessee. Notice U/s 158 BC issued." 7. On perusal of the same we are of the opinion, no satisfactory reasons are assigned by the Assessing Officer in order to issue a notice u/S 158BD as held by the Tribunal. In addition, we have also seen that the revenue did not show any reasons for non production of the reasons recorded for the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/S 158BD before the Tribunal when time was granted for one year to the revenue to produce the same. Even in this appeal, no explanation is offered except stating that reasons were recorded. When there is no explanation offered by the Revenue for non production of the document before the Tribunal for more than an year and having held that reasons recorded would not constitute satisfactory reasons, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1052 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 45.76 lacs, which was disallowed out of ₹ 54.76 lacs in assessment year 2006-07 and similarly in ssessment year 2008-09 ₹ 52.50 lacs was disallowed out of ₹ 67.50 lacs. The Tribunal in ITA No.202/Chd/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 in the appeal filed by the Revenue vide order dated 9.7.2010 had allowed the claim of the assessee in entirety. Similarly, in ITA No.754/Chd/2011 relating to assessment year 2008-09 in the appeal filed by the Revenue, vide order dated 30.11.2011, the Tribunal had allowed the claim of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The issue raised in the present appeal is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 and following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1051 - ITAT CHENNAI
Whether the Land sold is agricultural Land or not - whole locality was classified as Residential Area by the state government - Held that:- Tamilnadu Government itself has notified the area in which the land is situated as a residential area, the certificate issued by the VAO cannot supersede the classification given by the Tamilnadu Government - no record were found that suggest assessee had carried on any agricultural operations on the Land - Decided in favour of Revenue
............
|
