|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1060 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 866 - ITAT MUMBAI
Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- Intention of the Legislature was to allow unabsorbed depreciation allowance for an indefinite period of time since it was for enabling the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery and, bearing in mind the intention of incentive, restriction of 8 years was dispensed with by an amendment. See General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
-
2013 (5) TMI 865 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Income from undisclosed sources - Transaction of sale and purchase of shares - off market transaction - genuine or not - Held that:- even in the absence of the confirmation by those share brokers one has to examine that whether the shares have been purchased and after retaining them for a certain period those shares have actually been sold by the assessee. In the present case, facts have revealed that the shares of Sarang Chemicals were duly demated and thereupon the sales were made through banking transactions. The Demat account maintained with ICICI bank has revealed the shares numbers, etc. From the side of the assessee, it is vehemently contested that there was a reason of denial of transaction by those share-brokers because they have not intimated the transaction to the SEBI and that one of them has also made the purchase transaction in cash which was against the SEBI guidelines. Apartment from these evidences, our attention has also been drawn on a certificate issued by "share transfer agent" that the transfer of those shares in the name of the assessee was duly approved. The assessee has expressed to hold those shares in "dematerialized form" therefore the assessee was asked to fill up the "dematerialization request form". This information is very vital and proves the fact that the assessee had in fact purchased the shares of Sarang Chemicals Ltd. It is also difficult to ignore an another factual position that the assessee is in the past assessment year had duly disclosed in the balance-sheet the purchase of those shares.
Although, it was an off market transaction but it was properly documented and duly supported by relevant evidences - once the shares were in respect of a listed company and transaction was through Demat account which was as per the recognized Stock Exchange quoted price, then there was no reason to hold such nature of transaction as non-genuine - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 864 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... sales of such finished leather and has accepted by the AO. The quantity details of raw materials and finished goods are maintained by assesee is as evident from the audited accounts of the assessee and audit report. We find that there is a categorical finding of the CIT(A) that the AO could not point out any defect in the stock register, quantitative details of raw material and sale of finished product. Even the gross profit rate of the relevant Financial Year relevant to this assessment year is much higher at 11.8 as compared to two preceding assessment years 2006-07 and 2005-06 respectively. In such circumstances, the only fact that the notice could not be served on the suppliers no basis can be made for making disallowance of entire purchases pertaining to these 29 parties. In such circumstances, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. Order pronounced in open court.
-
2013 (5) TMI 863 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance of O/D interest - net off this interest expenditure - Held that:- The basic purpose of making FDR was to show net worth of the assessee in the form of liquid assets for the purpose of allotment of plot. In fact there was initial arrangement between the assessee and the sister concern to share the gains if the plot was allotted. It is also disputed that ultimately no plot was allotted to the assessee, therefore it cannot be said that interest expenditure has been used for the purpose of acquisition of capital assets. In any case, we find that assessee has also received interest amounting to ₹ 15,39,228 out of FDR which has been returned by the assessee as its income. Therefore, the interest expenditure on obtaining OD against such FDR is clearly required to be netted off. Accordingly, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to net off this interest expenditure amounting to ₹ 13,63,428 against the interest income of ₹ 15,39,228.
Deemed dividend addition under s. 2(22)(e) - Held that:- As observed that the arrangement by the assessee company with M/s Shalimar Estate (P) Ltd. was to share a plot which was being applied or to purchase another piece of land and money was given by M/s Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd. for definite l/3rd share of such plot or for purchase of another land, cannot be simply called a loan or advance, therefore, such payment would not be hit by s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and delete the addition of deemed dividend.
-
2013 (5) TMI 862 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... on the order of the AO could not bring to our knowledge any other decision of the jurisdictional High Court or that of the Supreme Court which would have taken a contrary view, what has been taken by the Hon‟ble Mumbai High Court into 261 ITR 256. Even this was not the case of the revenue that the said decision was not applicable in this case. Under these facts of the case, we are of the view, that no illegality and infirmity is caused in the order of the CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance on account of foreign exchange on forward contract. Thus, this is not a fit case which warrants our interference and we accordingly, dismiss the third ground taken by the revenue.” 12.2 Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we delete the disallowance by setting aside the order of CIT(A). In the result, ground no. 12 stands allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.05.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 861 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The assessing officer has not made any analysis of the details submitted by the assesseee. He has formed his opinion on the basis of the information submitted by the investigation wing, which is a general information and which can only set the machinery of the investigation in motion. The assessing officer has not carried out any investigation, he only discussed the modus operandie of the accommodation entry provider, which has been inferred by him from the information received from investigation wing. Thus the assessing officer has not carried out any investigation on the details submitted by the assessee, therefore, the addition are not sustainable
-
2013 (5) TMI 860 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... r its employees under the Provident Funds Act, 1925. Further, it could not be disputed that the expense was made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and was neither capital in nature nor personal. Section 36(1)(iv) of the Act does not specifically debar deduction on account of contribution made under the Provident Funds Act, 1925. It only talks about grant of deduction in respect of recognised provident fund. The contribution to the unrecognised provident fund was deductible.” 4.4.3. In conformity with the judicial views (supra), we are of the view that the CIT was not justified in disallowing a sum of ₹ 3,11,000/- and adding back the same to the total income of the assessee. In essence, the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act dated 29.11.2010 by the assessing officer is upheld / restored. It is ordered accordingly. 5 In the result,the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 859 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... record inspite of seeking time. No question of law arose from the order.” In such type of matter, the authorities are expected to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or merely a device to cover and ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. The court must see whether, in such cases, there is any taint of mala fides or element of recklessness or ruse. At the same time, the assessee is expected to explain each day’s delay. Totality of facts clearly indicates that the story explained by the assessee is without any basis. Even otherwise, a line has to be drawn between the bona fide litigants and who concoct the story on the basis of after-thought. In view of these uncontroverted facts and judicial pronouncements, the application for condonation of delay is having no merit, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is not maintainable. This order was pronounced in the open Court 8.5.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 858 - ITAT RANCHI
... ...
... ... ..... tes to the tax deducted at source amounting to ₹ 3,74,778/-. Brief facts relating to this ground are that the assessee claimed TDS amount ing to ₹ 10,14,579/- but the Assessing Officer al lowed the credit for TDS at ₹ 6,39,801/-. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took the view that the ground is not maintainable under sect ion 246A. 15. We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. In our opinion, the CIT(A) was not correct in law in not entertaining the ground. We, in the interest of just ice and fair play to both the part ies, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS cert ificate of the assessee and after verification of the TDS cert ificate, he should allow credi t to the assessee for the TDS. 16. In the result , the appeal fi led by the Revenue stands dismissed, while the appeal filed by the Assessee is part ly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 857 - ITAT RAJKOT
Penalty u/s 271E - whether imposition is time barred as per section 275(1)(c) ? - Held that:- The cases under appeal fall under section 275(1)(a). Both the orders of penalty have been passed well within the period of limitation laid down therein. The order of the CIT(A) cancelling the impugned penalties on the ground that they were time barred in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 275 is unsustainable in law for the reason that bar of limitation as contained in clause (c) of section 275(1) applies only in those cases which do not fall under clauses (a) and (b) of section 275(1). The impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) cancelling the impugned penalties as time barred u/s 275(1)(c) are therefore liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed to that extent.
-
2013 (5) TMI 856 - ITAT MUMBAI
Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) in respect of machinery which was acquired in the previous year - Held that:- The assessee is entitled to depreciation in the subsequent year if the entire depreciation is not allowed in the first year of installation. With this observation the appeal filed by the assessee company is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2013 (5) TMI 855 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... eloping it. We fail to understand as to when the amount paid by the assessee is being declared as deposits and advance, how it could be said that the assessee has practically purchased the land in question. This finding of Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee bore the cost and risk of developing the land is also without any basis and hence, we feel that under these facts, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable but we also feel that in the interest of justice, this issue should go back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision by way of passing a speaking and reasoned order. Accordingly, the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored back to his file for a fresh decision. Ld. CIT(A) should pass speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (5) TMI 854 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 14A read with Rule 8D by the A.O. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below remand the matter back to the file of the A.O to decide the issue of disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D on the investments of shares in question as per the law keeping in view the guidelines provided for the same in the above cited decisions after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Issue No-2 (Revenue) and Ground No-1 (Assessee) are thus allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No-2 (Assessee). 11. It is regarding the upholding of the action of the A.O in initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) © of the Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, is an independent proceedings, hence it does not need any interference at this stage as the same is premature. The ground is accordingly rejected. 12. Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 31 May/ 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 853 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee furnished necessary details and discharged its burden. Therefore, we find that the addition is not warranted accordingly, ₹ 1,09,00,000/- is deleted. 23. Considering the above discussions, we are of the view that the order passed by the A.O. was not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The learned CIT without any justification exercised the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I.T. Act. He has failed to take note of the fact that the substantial addition were made through the impugned order without appreciating the system of accounting followed by the assessee and explained to the satisfaction of the CIT. We have also deleted all the additions on merit, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is therefore set aside and quashed. The assessment order of the A.O. is restored. 24. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 852 - ITAT DELHI
TPA - payment of royalty by the assessee to its AE - Held that:- Royalty payment cannot be disallowed on the basis of the so-called benefit test and the domain of the TPO is only to examine as to whether the payment based on the agreement adheres to the arm’s length principle or not See Ericsson India [2012 (11) TMI 1 - ITAT, DELHI]. That being so, the action of the TPO in the present case, to make the disallowance mainly on the ground of the benefit test, is unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of provisions of warranty u/s 37(1) - Held that:- Undisputedly, the assessee was making the provisions on actual warranty basis for the unexpired warranty period, providing warranty of one year on the products which it was selling. It created provision for warranty for the unexpired period of warranty as at the end of the year, on a percentage of the actual warranty expenses during the immediately prior period, on the sales made. It has not been shown as to how this basis of making provision for warranty is not scientific. Moreover, similar provision for warranty was not disallowed in the earlier years, upto Assessment Year 2005-06.- Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of provisions for leave encashment u/s 43B - Held that:- As to whether there has indeed been a double addition, needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer by confirming as to whether or not the assessee had made the disallowance itself and the amount had not been carried to the Profit & Loss Account. For this purpose, the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer, to be decided afresh in accordance with the law, on affording adequate and due opportunity to the assessee
Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - assessee has contended before us that the assessee had itself worked out a disallowance of ₹ 12,61,008/-; that however, neither the Assessing Officer, nor the DRP adjudicated on the aspect as to how such disallowance made by the assessee itself was incorrect or not acceptable - Held that:- The matter needs verification by the Assessing Officer, for which purpose, it is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-adjudicate the matter in accordance with law on affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, particularly verifying the aforesaid averments made by the assessee.
Disallowance of depreciation on computer peripherals @ 60%, is erroneous. See BSES Yamuna Power [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2013 (5) TMI 851 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... half of appellant even in second round also. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in default.
-
2013 (5) TMI 850 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 2008-09 or it pertains to the present assessment year 2009-10. Moreover, this issue has not been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), even though specific ground was raised. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that this issue needs to be restored back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and restore this issue back to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter afresh after examining the issue whether this amount has already been taxed in the assessment year 2008-09 or whether any benefit of telescoping can be given. Needless to say that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) will provide due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. This ground is, thus, treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 3rd May 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 849 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... es of expenditure from the purview of fringe benefits. The reason stated by the authorities for denying the claim of the assessee is that this expenditure are incurred for providing food/beverages to its customers and not to its employees. The said reason, according to us, is without substance, since the basis of fiction contained in sec.115WB(2) is that certain expenses, if incurred, shall be deemed to have been provided by the employer to his employees. Therefore, if certain species of expenditure incurred on the employees are excluded from the purview of FBT, the same exclusion will also hold good for other persons. In view of the above reasoning, ground nos. 5 to 7 are allowed”. 9.1. Following the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.1066/Bang/2010 dated 26th August, 2011, we reject ground no.3 raised by the revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The order pronounced on the 22nd day of May, 2013 at Bangalore.
-
2013 (5) TMI 848 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nst recovery notice dated 14-2-2012 and the respondent-Department shall consider the same in accordance with law within reasonable period. 7. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a fresh representation against recovery notice dated 14-2-2012 in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. He is at liberty to raise all his factual and legal arguments including the judgments as sought to be relied upon by the petitioner. The respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that in case, an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, then it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same afresh in accordance with law. 8. Stay application No. 3479/2012 is also disposed of.
-
2013 (5) TMI 847 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... . The assessee in its paper book has submitted the copy of the bank account of the brokers to whom the shares were sold and has also stated to have received the sale proceeds by account payee cheques. However, the purchase of shares from M/s. Bubna Stock Broking Services Ltd. has not been proved by the assessee. The assessee could not conclusively prove that the share which it had sold, has been held by him for a period exceeding 1 year and therefore, the gains on sale of shares in the nature of Long Term Capital Gain. Since holding the shares for a period of exceeding 1 year has not been proved conclusively. We are of the view that the assessee cannot claim the profit earned on sale of shares as Long Term Capital Gain. We, therefore, direct that the profit be considered as Short Term Capital Gain and tax accordingly. Thus, this ground of assessee is dismissed. 27. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 10.05.2013
............
|
