|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1233 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1024 - ITAT PUNE
Concept of real income approved in the case of banking business - whether Assessee can offer his interest received from bad and doubtful debts (NPA) on actual basis as per RBI guidelines even though assessee is following mercantile systems of accounting - section 43D applicability - Held that:- We find that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT,”A” Bench, Pune, in the case of CIT, Cir 3, Nanded Vs. Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT PUNE].
-
2012 (9) TMI 1023 - ITAT PUNE
Addition made on account of sticky advances - Decided in favour of assessee - See ACIT Versus Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT PUNE]
Accrual of interest - interest on FDRs with NDCC Bank accrued with period of time - Held that:- there is no dispute to the factual position that the NDCC Bank is restrained from carrying on routine business transactions, inter alia, which pertains to accepting fresh deposits and/or repaying existing deposits, etc. As a consequence, it is quite clear that there is a genuine impairment on the part of the assessee to earn the impugned amount of interest on FDRs with NDCC Bank. In this background, the ultimate direction of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer may tax the interest on accrual basis, whenever NDCC Bank is allowed by the Reserve Bank of India to repay deposits or interest to the assessee, is reasonable and cannot be faulted with. We accordingly find no justifiable reasons to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the amoun
Addition made on account of payment of ex-gratia - Held that:- We find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and then allow the deduction subject to payment having been made. We uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.
Addition on leave encashment - Held that:- The account statement shows that the expenditure claimed and actually paid during the year which reflects the liability arising during the year itself and it has been actually paid. In this view of above factual matrix, we find that the CIT(A) made no error in deleting the addition
-
2012 (9) TMI 1022 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - Held that:- If there is no evidence that the builder has combined the flats and the adjoining flats are combined by the customers, there was no reason to compute the built up area as required for clause (i) of section 80-IB(10) of the Act after combining the flats. In this view of the matter, we are therefore, of the opinion that the built-up of the flats have to be considered independently, as rightly concluded by the CIT(A). If so done, in the present case, we find that the condition prescribed in clause (c) to section 80-IB(10) of the Act is met. Therefore, on this aspect, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1021 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Expenditure incurred by the Assessee company on foreign education and travel of son of the Managing Director of the Company - Allowable business expenditure - Held that:- The purpose of Section 40A is to prevent the abuse of fund by the company for personal interest. There should be dividing line between personal interest and the interest of the company. A personal interest means the expenditure incurred not for the purpose of company but for own interest of the office bearers of the company or their sons and relatives but in case an expenditure is incurred by the company to send someone for training or higher education and after returning back in pursuance to contractual obligation, such person joins the company itself, then in such circumstances, it may not be treated as expenditure for personal reason because of relationship with an office bearer. The expenses incurred should be for the purpose of the company which has been benefitted because of training and higher education imparted to the person concerned. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 1020 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ee. Whatever investment it had made, had come down to ‘0’ by the end of the relevant previous year. If the claim of the assessee that investments were made in debt oriented mutual funds, is correct, and if the gains arising on sale thereof had been offered to tax, then of course, in our opinion, such investments could not be treated as giving rise to tax-free income. Section 14A will have no applicability. In our opinion whether the investments were only in debt oriented mutual funds which yielded no income other than capital gains, needs to be verified and only if this is proved to be correct, application of Section 14A can be ruled out. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 27. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on Monday, the 24th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1019 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... stration and for this purpose he relied on the following judgements a) Fifth Generation Education Society v. CIT, 185 ITR 634 (All) b) M.K. Nambyar SAARC Law Charitable Trust v. Union of India & Ors., 269 ITR 556 (Del) c) Medical Accident Prevention Society v. CIT, 278 ITR 165 (Ker.) d) Kasyapa Veda Research Foundation v. CIT, 131 ITD 370 (Cochin) 6. The AR also relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal which support assessee's case a) M/s. Saraswathi Swetha Educational Trust v. DIT(E), in ITA No. 495/Mds/2011 dated 9.2.2012. b) Sri Abhaya Anjaneya Charitable Trust v. DIT(E) in ITA NO. 1689/Hyd/2011 dated 18.3.2011. 7. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of the DIT(E) to consider the application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act in the light of above decisions and decide the issue in accordance with the law. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1018 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... leted. 19. We have heard both the parties, perused the record and gone through the orders o the authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Raghavendra Rao has also submitted in the paper book the details of contract receipts and profit & loss account. He also reiterated that no income is earned by the JV and the income has arisen to the members individually. In these circumstances, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the corresponding incomes as per the allotment of JV agreements has been offered in the individual (constituents) hands and, if so, it cannot be taxed in the hands of the JV, namely, the assessee. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. To sum up, appeal of the revenue and the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 21st September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1017 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e findings of the lower authorities that the said goods have been liable for excise duty under the provisions of Section 4A, the appellant could not have adopted the valuation under Section 4. 4. On perusal of record, we find that the issue needs to be gone into details as regards the applicability of DPCO order and the various other provisions. We find that on an identical issue in various other stay petitions, we had directed the main appellant therein to deposit 10 of the amount of the duty liability. We do not find any reason to change our view on this issue and hence we direct the main appellant M/s. Alkem Laboratories Limited to deposit 10 of the duty liability within four weeks from today and report compliance on 04.10.2012. Subject to such compliance being reported, the applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved in all these appeals are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (9) TMI 1016 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... its proceedings were completed u/s 133A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A).” 6. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee who is one of the director of the Company M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., had already made a disclosure of ₹ 75,00,000/- with regard to himself and his associate concerns in order to escape the wrath of the penalty provisions u/s 271 AAA of the Act. Since, the facts and circumstances of the case of the Company M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., is identical with that of the assessee’s case for both the assessment years, following the decision held in the case of M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO u/s 271 (1) ( c ) read with section 274 of the Act. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in his favour. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07-09-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1015 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... f section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and (iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income (3)……. (4) …….” 9. From the facts and circumstances of the case before us, we are of the considered view that the disclosure made by the director of the appellant company during the search proceedings on behalf of himself, sister concerns and group concerns will entitle the appellant company who is one amongst the group concerns, to claim benefit u/s 271AAA of the Act though its proceedings were completed u/s 133A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1014 - ITAT JODHPUR
Reopening of assessment - claim for deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- Assessee furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and the Assessing Officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, in the present case, reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is definitely a change of opinion which is not maintainable and therefore, the re assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was not valid.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1013 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - no penalty could be levied merely on disallowance of a deduction, which was made by taking a different view.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1012 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of travelling expenses - Held that:- We find that the addition on account of travelling expenses was totally based on surmises and conjectures. Assessing Officer has not brought on record any cogent basis as to why this expenditure was to be disallowed. It is not the case that expenditure was considered to be bogus or any shortcoming in the vouchers in this regard was observed by the Revenue.
Under the circumstances, we hold that estimated addition without any basis cannot be sustained. In this regard, the case law relied upon by the assessee in the case of the ITO vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd [1981 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A] is germane. In this case, it was held that the travelling expenses and salary expenses, addition made on estimate basis cannot be justified. Moreover, disallowance is also not justified merely on the ground that similar disallowance was made in the previous year. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedent, we hold that the addition on account of travelling expenses is liable to be deleted and hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1011 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inst the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the assessee's own case, being Income Tax Appeal No.3625 of 2010 decided on 7th July 2011. 2. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1010 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT-A AO had allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(10) without examining whether all the conditions prescribed by the Section were satisfied - Held that:- The assessee had filed the details and calculations about the built-up area of the residential units. It would be unreasonable to hold that the Assessing Officer ignored those details. Moreover the statutory auditors had clearly mentioned the dates of approval of the lay out plan of the residential colonies. The Assessing Officer was thus made aware of the dates on which the approvals were granted in respect of each of the four housing projects.
The determination of the question as to when the undertaking commenced development and construction, in the absence of any statutory prescription, has to be decided in a pragmatic and reasonable way. It would have been an entirely different issue had there been a statutory prescription of what would be the date of commencement of construction or development. It is certainly a debatable issue on which more than one plausible view is reasonably possible and merely because the Assessing Officer has taken one plausible view, it cannot be said that the assessment is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - Decided against revenue
-
2012 (9) TMI 1009 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Saviour Charitable Trust v. CIT (7 Taxmann.com 34) (Delhi). He also relied on 23 SOT 42. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly opposed the arguments of the AR and relied on the order of the DIT(E). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case an absolute power has been given to the author/ founder to revoke the Trust Deed according to his wishes. In our opinion, it will affect the very existence of the trust itself. As such we are not inclined to uphold the arguments of the assessee's counsel. However, as conceded by the AR on making appropriate amendment to the Trust Deed to the satisfaction of the DIT(E), the registration will be granted. Accordingly, the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the DIT(E) for fresh consideration. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1008 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... bject clause contains the clause that the activities of the trust and its objects will not be confined to India. To grant approval under section 80G of the Act, the DIT (E) can examine whether or not the conditions set out in section 80G(5) (i) to (v) are satisfied. If the assessee has satisfied the above conditions, there is no reason to deny the approval under section 80G of the Act by the DIT (E). 10. In the circumstances, we direct the DIT (E) to consider the amendment and decide the issue in accordance with law. 11. The reason for denial of registration u/s. 12AA and approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) by DIT(E) is not justified. We, therefore, remit the entire issue back to the file of the DIT(E) who shall reconsider the assessee's application for registration u/s. 12AA and approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and decide the issue afresh. 12. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1007 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A. - Held that:- Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on the income which was included by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act.
Disallowance of expenditure - addition on the basis of seized loose - Held that:- The documents being belonging to the assessee, the assessee is in a better position to explain the same and assessee chooses not to explain the same, therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted on the face of it. The set off can be granted only if assessee is able to explain that the amount shown on the debit side are the expenditure either incurred for the purpose of business or have been incurred to earn the amount which is shown in the credit side. Here it may be the contention of the assessee that amount has come to the credit from various entities and paid also by way of various entries to various parties, therefore, aggregate of the credit entries alone cannot be taken as income as the same should considered to be credits by earlier debit entries. However, in absence of dates of the receipts and payments such claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Such claim can be taken into account only when the dates of the credit and debit entries are known. What is known in the present case is opening balance of ₹ 46.00 lacs as on 5/9/2005 and the dates of other entries are not known.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - Income for which the set off /telescoping was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal - Held that:- The nature of credit as well as debit entries has not been determined to take home the point that what is depicted on the seized paper is the income of the assessee. It is not the case of the department that the parties mentioned therein cannot be approached to determine the character of the amount stated in the seized documents. No such attempt has been made by the department to ascertain the character of receipts as well as payments. Therefore, the addition itself is only on the basis of presumption laid down in section 132(4). Further, for the purpose of levy of penalty it is to be established that what is assessed is the concealed income of the assessee. The amounts stated on the seized document has also not been related to any cash or assets seized during the course of search. In absence of any such material and cogent evidence that the amount stated in the seized document is in the nature of income, we do not consider it just and proper to uphold the concealment penalty on the addition. We may also mention that Ld. CIT(A) has clearly given the set off of a sum of ₹ 79,70,191/- to the assessee on account of additional income declared by the assessee in the return field in response to section 153A of the Act, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected such claim of the assessee. Since we have held that it is not a fit case where levy of concealment penalty cannot be justified, the alternative claim of the assessee has became academic that penalty should not be levied with respect to amounts which has been held to be set off by Ld. CIT(A).
-
2012 (9) TMI 1006 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e consideration as per this agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly the addition because of the deeming provisions does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s 271( 1) (c). Hence in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro products Pvt.Ltd (supra), the penalty levied u/s 271( 1)( c ) is not sustainable. The same is deleted. 5. In the instant case also the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the amount of difference between the sale consideration shown by the assessee and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Renu Hingorani (supra). Respectfully following the Order of the Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra), we cancel the penalty of ₹ 86,930/- levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1005 - ITAT CHENNAI
Claim u/s 10B declined - delay on part of the assessee in filing the ‘return’ under section 139(1) - Held that:- The substantive ground for rejecting assessee’s deduction claim is only that of delay of one month(supra) in filing ‘return’, we are of the opinion that the assessee has successfully explained the delay. Accordingly we hold that the assessee has filed a valid return under section 139(1) of the ‘Act’. Accordingly, the assessee is also held entitled for getting the deduction under section 10B of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
