|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 838 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... T Act. All the objections of the AO have been considered correctly by the learned CIT(A) and rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The other conditions of section 80 IB (10) of the IT Act are not disputed by the AO. The same view is taken by ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s. Safal Associates (supra). Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, we are of the view that the assessee fulfilled the conditions and requirements of section 80 IB (10) of the IT Act, therefore, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the IT Act should not have been refused by the AO. We accordingly, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the IT Act to the assessee. There are no merits in the departmental appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, all the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 837 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ete and that the said reinforced cement concrete formed integral part of the windmill. The Tribunal has also followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Herdilla Chemicals Ltd. reported in 1995 216 I.T.R. 742 (Bom) in allowing the claim of the assessee. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that RCC foundation forms integral part of the windmill is a finding of fact and no question of law arises from the same, Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 835 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the order of the learned CIT(A). o p /o p 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order and the order of the learned CIT(A) clearly shows that by replacement of the cooling tower and the coil, the assessee has not replaced the entire machinery. The assessee has only replaced a part of the machinery which had undergone substantial wear and tear. The assessee has not derived any enduring advantage nor has the assessee derived any advantage in the form of increase in the production capacity. This being so, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Saravana Spinning Mills, referred to supra, and M/s. Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd., referred to supra, we are of the view that the finding as arrived at by the learned CIT(A) is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p 7. The order was pronounced in the court on 24/06/2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 834 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and accordingly directed to allow higher depreciation as claimed by the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that order of the Tribunal for assessment year 1991-92 is filed at page 3 of the paper book to show that claim of the assessee is allowed for higher depreciation. The learned DR conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal (supra). 8. On consideration of the above facts we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal mentioned by the learned CIT(A) in the appellate order. The same order is followed by the Tribunal in the case of same assessee in assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No.113/Ahd/2006 and departmental appeal has been dismissed on identical grounds vide order dated 21- 11-2008. This ground of appeal of the revenue has no merit and is dismissed. 9. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30-06-2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 833 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... dering and on being satisfied that the conditions specified were fulfilled by the assessee. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts, are of the view that the action taken by the learned CIT does not fall within the parameters of sub-s. (3) of s. 12AA of the IT Act. Therefore, his action in cancelling the registration by invoking the provisions of s. 12AA(3) of the IT Act is not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order of the learned CIT passed under s. 12AA(3) of the IT Act and allow the appeal of the assessee." 6.2 Since the facts of the present case are similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of Bharat Jyoti (supra), so respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Tribunal on the identical issue, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT and direct him to restore the registration earlier granted to the assessee society under s. 12A of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 832 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ance on estimate basis can also be done and such estimate can also be applied to administrative expenses. 6. We have heard the rival parties. In our considered view the position of law in relation to disallowance of administrative expenses is now clear. Such disallowance cannot be made prior to Asst. Year 2007-08 unless there is a direct nexus established by the AO. It has been held that rule 8D is not retrospective and would be applicable for and from Asst. Year 2007-08 and, therefore, it cannot be applied in Asst. Year 2006-07 which is before us and, therefore, calculation as per rule 8D cannot be done for disallowance of administrative expenses, unless of course a direct nexus is established which has not been done in the present case. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO and enhanced by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 3/6/11.
-
2011 (6) TMI 831 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153C - Satisfaction for issuing Notice by AO - AO issued a notice u/s 153C to verify certain transactions regarding lease agreement found during search and seizure operation u/s 132 - Assessee's stated that such order is unlawful and invalid - Issue is whether any satisfaction at all is required to be arrived at by the AO of the person who was searched u/s.132 regarding any undisclosed income of the person who was not subjected to a search
HELD THAT:- The ITAT Delhi in the case of JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2008 (4) TMI 357 - ITAT DELHI-G], had dealt with this issue, held that "the AO has to follow the condition precedent for proceeding u/s.153-C in the same manner as the AO would do for proceeding u/s.158BD. The Hon’ble Tribunal in this regard referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MANISH MAHESHWARI AND INDORE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT], and have held that satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to the person other than the one who is searched u/s.132, has to be arrived at by the AO before proceeding to hand over seized document to the AO of the person who was not searched." We therefore hold, following the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench referred to above, that the AO has to record satisfaction regarding existence of undisclosed income before proceeding u/s.153-C.
Whether satisfaction about undisclosed income of the Assessee have been arrived at by the AO? - The assessee has been declaring income from letting out of the property regularly in its books of account. The factum of the assessee receiving income in the form of rent is very much in the knowledge of the department
HELD THAT:- In our view, the satisfaction required for proceedings under section 153C cannot be reduced to a mere formality of forwarding the documents found in the course of search which did not belong to the person searched and which belonged to the person against whom proceedings under section 153C are sought to be initiated. In the present case we are of the view that that there was no satisfaction regarding existence of any undisclosed income which warrants proceedings under section 153 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the necessary satisfaction does not exist for the proceedings under section 153C of the Act. On this ground the assessment is annulled - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Income Received from letting out - Business Income or not? - Assessee, carries out business of property dealing where he earns income from selling and letting out of property - The properties let out did not get good price and therefore retained and let out temporarily. Since the letting was incidental to business - such income must be treated as business income.
HELD THAT:- It can be said that the assessee did not cease to carry on the business of purchase and sale of properties. The expenses sought to be disallowed by the AO were required to be incurred by the assessee. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the rental income is to be assessed under the head income from House property, still the assessee would be entitled to the deduction of the aforesaid expenses. Therefore, the impugned additions deserve to be deleted even on merits. In our view, even on merits the assessee deserves to succeed. We, therefore, direct that the impugned addition be deleted. All the appeals of the assessee are accordingly allowed - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 830 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se, the Tribunal was justified in law in treating CST reimbursement claim as income derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for exemption u/s 10B? (ii) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the receipts of Century Yarn Division, as EOU, on account of freight rebate on export bills, power subsidy, packaging charges received, staff house rent, workers house rent, cotton sale, bardana sale, store bardana sale and recovery of earlier years export bills have direct nexus with export business and therefore eligible for deduction u/s 10B.”
-
2011 (6) TMI 829 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espect of new projects under construction.? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in law in allowing financial charges of ₹ 1,18,03,359/as revenue expenditure in respect of new projects which were under construction?” 2. As regards questions 1 to 4 are concerned, similar questions raised by the revenue in the assessee’s own case in Income Tax Appeal 4218 of 2009 have not been admitted. Hence, the questions nos.1 to 4 cannot be entertained. 3. As regards the fifth question is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the financial charges were paid by the assessee to the Bank for obtaining loan during the course of business and hence allowable as business expenditure. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal in allowing the aforesaid expenditure as business expenditure. Thus, the fifth question cannot be entertained. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 828 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... T. after considering all facts on record has allowed the claim. Moreover, similar expenses allowed in the past have attained finality. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, question no.3 raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 4. As regards the fourth question is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the I.T.A.T. is that the monies were borrowed for the purpose of the business and utilised in the new Unit, which is yet to commence the commercial operation, hence, the interest on borrowed funds is required to be allowed irrespective of the fact that assessee has capatilised the interest in its books of account. The Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Core HealthCare Limited, reported in (2008) 298 ITR 194 SC, has allowed interest on borrowed capital utilised in relation to the business of assessee. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with question no.4 raised by the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 827 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... is filed, as per the principle laid down in Vinay Cement. " 9.4 In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in holding that the employees' contribution towards PF/ESI made by the assessee before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is admissible. Therefore, we vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and consequently, direct the AO to allow payments made on account of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI on or before the due date of filing of the return u/s 39(1) of the Act. W ith these directions, ground no. 2 in the appeal is allowed. 10. Ground No.3 being mere prayer nor any submissions having been made on this grounds, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no. 4 in the appeal, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal is allowed Order pronounced in the court today on 30 -06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 826 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... income as may be computed u/s. 44AE. It is not the case where the assessee has computed the income from the trucks at ₹ 179945/- in accordance with the provisions of section 44AE. If the assessee would have returned the income from the trucks in accordance with the provisions of section 44AE, the assessee would have not been entitled for depreciation in view of specific provisions given u/s. 44AE(3). This is not the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not appreciated the facts of the case if the income has been computed in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act under the head income from business. We are of the view that the assessee is entitled for depreciation. We accordingly delete the disallowance. Thus, this ground is allowed. As a result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objection filed by assessee is allowed. Pronounced on 17.06.11
-
2011 (6) TMI 825 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have universal application and would thus nullify the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Escorts Finance Ltd. (supra). In the present case, it has not been shown by the revenue that the assessee furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", the meaning of which has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproucts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the present case, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is exigible, We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 16. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 824 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... is liable to be held in favour of the assessee in regard to the issue of the delay in filing the return of income. However, as it is noticed that the Assessing Officer has not gone into the merits of the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act made by the assessee, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Here we may specifically make it clear that respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dhir Global Industries P. Ltd., referred to supra, the issue regarding the delay in filing the return of income in respect of the claim of deduction under section 10B is held in favour of the assessee and the same shall not again form part of the adjudication before the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The order was pronounced in the court on 30/06/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 823 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... however, to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings having no impact on the ultimate profit shown by the assessee, we dismiss this ground of the revenue.’ o p /o p We being in agreement with the decision of Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2002-03(supra), and the facts of the case being similar for the relevant assessment year 2004-05, decide the issue in favour of the assesseea and the ground of appeal No.1 of the revenue is dismissed.” o p /o p 5. We find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the decisions of the Tribunal in assese’s case for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2004-05. o p /o p Therefore, we see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench, and, accordingly, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere. o p /o p 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 13th June, 2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 822 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO 88 ITD 159 (SB) . Respectfully following the decision of Special Bench, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 9. In the present Assessment year, the CIT(A) following the aforesaid order of the ITAT held that Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the receipt on account of TDR premium as income of the assessee and that the said receipt is not income in the hands of the assessee on the principle of mutuality. 10. We are of the view that in the light of the decision of the Tribunal referred to above there is no merit in the grievance projected by the revenue in these appeals regarding taxability of TDR premium received. We, therefore, reject the claim of the revenue in this regard. 11. In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 24th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 821 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nder Section 271(1)(c). In the present, there is no dispute that all the facts have been disclosed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, and the only dispute is with regard to claim of depreciation. While calculating the depreciation the assessee has taken one view and the department has taken another view. This will not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of the inaccurate particulars. It is settled proposition of the law that a misconceived or wrong claim for deduction or exemption does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, in such situation no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c). In view of the above, we respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. (supra) uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed Order pronounced in Open Court on 17th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 820 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ions of sub-sections (2) & (3) of section 14A of the Act and Rule 8D are applicable w.e.f. Asst. Year 2007-08 as held by Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). The disallowance u/s 14A for the year under consideration can be made on reasonable basis after following the authorities on the subject. Even otherwise Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd 2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) held that if there are funds available, both interest-free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In view of above, this ground of Revenue is also rejected. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 17.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 819 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, al lowed. 32. Ground No.2 is against the sustenance of disallowance of Sales Tax Expenses of Dabhol Project Of f ice, Ground No.3 is against the sustenance of disallowance of Haldia Project Of f ice and Ground No.4 is against the set of f of car ried forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss. 33. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submi ts that he does not want to press aforesaid grounds No.2,3 and 4 which was not objected to by the learned DR . 34. That being so and in the absence of any other supporting materials placed on record by the learned counsel for the assessee, the grounds No.2,3 and 4 taken by the assessee are therefore, rejected being not pressed. 35. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 818 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of 15 out of payments made to vendors covered by the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The addition be deleted.” 2. “On the fats and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act vary with section 194C of the Income Tax Act.” 13. These grounds are identical to the grounds raised and considered by us while deciding appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07. For the reasons stated therein the order of CIT(A) with regard to the disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act is set aside and the issue is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act challenged in ground No.2 is decided in favour of the assessee. 14. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 24th day of June, 2011.
............
|
