|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 468 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 195 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ems, but Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee by noting that Mr. Afaq Husain was neither partner of the assessee firm nor its employee and it is not proved that expenses incurred by the assessee on training expenses of Mr. Afaq Husain were exclusively and wholly meant for business purposes. The query was raised by the Bench to the learned counsel for the assessee to this effect and learned Counsel was not in a position to specify us, as it has not been brought on record that Mr. Afaq Husain was sent by the firm to get training so that after his return from foreign country, he may be helpful to the business activities of the assessee firm. No evidence has come on record that after getting training Mr. Afaq Husain rendered any services to the business of the assessee firm. In the absence of any such evidence, the claim of the assessee was rightly rejected. Both the grounds are rejected. 13. The result is that appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 194 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Block Assessment in search case ... ... ... ... ..... rse would be to set aside the assessment and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. But there may be cases where sufficient opportunity might have already been given by the Assessing Officer or the assessee might have participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer or there may be sufficient materials on the record for adjudication. In such cases mere restoration may prove to be a futile exercise. Therefore, in such cases, the appellate authority may adjudicate the issue itself after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain his case. These observations are mere guidelines and no limitations are being placed on the powers of the appellate authority. The appellate authority would be free to choose the right course depending upon the facts of the each case. 57. The matter will now go to the regular bench for final disposal of the appeal on merit.
-
2003 (8) TMI 191 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... the tax due was sought by the assessee. It is entirely a different matter that the Department adjusted a sum of Rs. 39,977 against the tax liability of the assessee, whereas the claim of the assessee and Shri Surajmal was to adjust the seized cash at Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 1,20,000 respectively against their tax demand. Suo motu adjustment of the seized cash by the Revenue against the tax liability of two connected assessees in a particular manner, totally disregarding the claim of the assessees for adjustment in a specific way cannot be a ground to put the assessee in a disadvantageous position. In view of these facts, we are satisfied that the condition of Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, with regard to the payment of tax and interest on surrendered income stands satisfied. Accordingly, there is no reason for upholding the penalty on this count. We, therefore, delete the sustenance of penalty by the first Appellate Authority. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 189 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Mutual concern ... ... ... ... ..... e principle of mutuality. We, therefore, allow this ground of the assessee. 19. The learned counsel for the assessee had submitted that if the first ground of the assessee is allowed the grounds on the issue of reopening under s. 148 and on the issues of status taken by the assessee need not be gone into by this Tribunal. As we have allowed the first ground on taxability of interest received on fixed deposits in favour of the assessee, we do not go into the grounds of reopening of the assessment and assessability of the assessee as AOP. 20. The only other ground that remains is whether receipts from members of affiliated clubs is taxable or not on the doctrine or mutuality. 21. As both the parties have agreed that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee rsquo s own case ITO vs. Fateh Maidan Club, we allow this ground of the assessee. 22. In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 188 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Issue Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... sion, financial service commissions, admission fees, tuition fees, etc. Reading them all together, the principle is that when service is provided on a continuing basis and the cost relating to the service falls in a different year, revenue should be recognized on a time basis. Going by this general import of item 6 in the appendix and the wording in the body of the accounting standard 9 itself, it is clear that the assessee conformed to the accounting standard 9 and as such, the book results deserve to be accepted. 51. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer is not justified in bringing to tax the entire membership fee collected to tax in the year under appeal. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities on this aspect and direct the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment accordingly. 52. In the result, assessee s appeal, ITA No. 136/Hyd/99 is dismissed, and appeal, ITA No. 244/Hyd./03 is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 187 - ITAT DELHI-F
... ...
... ... ..... have invested money in the purchase of shares then the amount received by the company would be treated as genuine share capital. Applying the ratio of these decisions to the facts of the instant case, we feel that there is nothing on record to treat the impugned investment of Rs. 1,38,000 as non-genuine. In any case, the entire issue of genuineness of share capital, as we have already discussed above, would have to be examined in the context of the scheme of block assessment and not the regular assessment. Facts are undisputed that no material or information has been unearthed by the Department during the course of search to support the inference that investment in the share capital is non-genuine and, therefore, there is no occasion for treating the impugned amounts as undisclosed income of the assessee-company. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the addition of Rs. 1,38,000 made on account of share application money is deleted. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 186 - ITAT DELHI-F
... ...
... ... ..... not exist then, in effect, it would mean that there is no valid issuance of share capital. Shares cannot be issued in the name of non-existing persons." Applying the aforesaid settled legal position to the facts of the instant case, we find that the impugned addition made by the AO is in any case liable to be deleted in the facts of the instant case. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the identity of the shareholders is established and they have filed confirmation letters which have, in fact, been found at the premises of Shri Alok Aggarwal, as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order itself. On this short ground alone, the ratio of Delhi High Court decisions clinches the issue against the Revenue. The addition of the share capital made by the AO in the block assessment is, therefore, liable to be deleted. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the addition of Rs. 2,27,15,000 made on account of share capital is deleted. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed as above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 185 - ITAT DELHI-F
Powers of Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... dmitted. 11. We have also considered the grounds, of appeal and have heard the learned counsels of the parties in relation thereto. Since we have admitted additional evidence we consider it proper to setaside the orders of the learned CIT(A) for both the assessment years in question and restore the matter back to him for deciding the issues involved in these two appeals on merits. While doing so, the genuineness of the documents admitted and their evidentiary value shall be considered by the learned CIT(A), after providing due opportunity to the AO to examine the documents and also to rebut the same by adducing evidence, if it is so required. Hence, the grounds in these two appeals shall be adjudicated by the learned CIT(A) after providing full opportunity to both the sides i.e., to the Department, to the assessee and after considering the supplementary evidence admitted by us on merits as per law. 12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
2003 (8) TMI 184 - ITAT DELHI-E
Revision Of Order ... ... ... ... ..... ealth-tax Act and therefore the same could not have been adopted as the basis for determining the value of assets. The assessee has not pointed out any irregularity committed by the DVO. As pointed out earlier the DVO has adopted the procedure laid down under section 16A and has considered the objections raised on behalf of the assessee against estimated valuation proposed by him. Thus, this ground is also bereft of any force. 29. After considering the totality of the circumstances and the entire material on record, we find no error in the order of the learned Commissioner as he has considered the entire relevant material and has passed a detailed and speaking order, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 30. In view of the above, the order of Commissioner of Wealth-tax passed under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act is upheld and the grounds taken by the assessee to challenge the same are rejected. 31. In the result, assessee s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 183 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... considered in the regular assessments, then he could have reopened the same in s. 147/148 proceedings. It may be pertinent to reproduce the view taken by the jurisdictional High Court on the scope of the assessments made under Chapter XIV-B. Their Lordships have held that the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B is not intended to be a substitute for regular assessment. Accordingly, in the face of the evidence relied upon by the assessee and the case law considered by the Tribunal and taking note of the fact that no distinguishing fact, circumstance or contrary view was brought to our notice, we are of the view that the grounds challenging the addition on merit deserve to be allowed. 22. Ground Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 as such become academic in nature in view of the fact that we have deleted the addition made and as such require no adjudication. Ground No. 4 being general in nature also requires no adjudication. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 182 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... ed that the figure of difference under the head loans and advances, as on above date, has been worked out to Rs. 45,500, i.e., loans and advances as per balance sheet dt.31st March, 1994, were of Rs. 3,31,193. The difference between these two figures comes to Rs. 45,500 and not Rs. 47,500 as taken and worked out by the learned AO. In this way, the difference of Rs. 2,000 alleged to exist in the first part of para 11 and in supplementary trial balance is due to clerical error on the part of the AO. 46. We have examined the rival submissions. In our opinion in view of the factual position explained above, the addition of Rs. 1,16,500 has been made by the AO without appreciating the correct facts. We confirm the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,16,500. The appeal of the Department is dismissed on the seventh ground. 47. In the result the appeal of the Department is allowed only on the sixth ground and dismissed in respect of all the other grounds.
-
2003 (8) TMI 181 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... it of Rs. 1 lakh. The Revenue has contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition though the assessee has failed to prove the creditworthiness of M/s Paltan International (P) Ltd. The facts as to whether the amount was security against supplies of goods from this party was also not ascertained and the learned CIT(A) accepted the plea merely for saying though the same was not raised before the AO. It was therefore, contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. The matter needs to be resorted to the AO for examining the correctness of the facts and decide the issue afresh. Assessee rsquo s counsel also did not object to restoration of this issue to the AO. That being so we restore this issue back to the AO. He shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law. 68. In the result appeal of the Revenue stands allowed and the assessee rsquo s appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 180 - ITAT DELHI-D
Credit For Tax Deducted ... ... ... ... ..... d an assurance was given before the court that the employee i.e., payer will make the payment of additional tax. All such elements are absent in the appeal before us. 5.10 The appellant-company seeks refund of that amount of TDS for which the payee is precluded for taking credit in his assessment. In case refund is allowed to be given to the company its consequences will be adverse and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, besides, depriving the revenue of its legitimate share of taxes. In the overall analysis of facts and circumstances of the case and on findings arrived at we are convinced that the appellant is not the rightful person to claim refund in the amount of TDS for which a valid certificate stands issued to the payee. The order of the learned CIT(A) therefore needs no interference. Ground raised by the assessee stands rejected. 6. There is no address on Ground Nos. 2 and 3. The same are, therefore, rejected. 6.1 In the result, assessee s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 179 - ITAT DELHI-D
Appellate Tribunal, Powers Of ... ... ... ... ..... ctification of such mistakes the end result is not relevant and review of an order of the Tribunal in the guise of an application under section 254(2) is not permitted by law. 45. Before I part with this reference, I may mention that the Tribunal is not expected to reconcile judgments of the Hon ble High Courts as this is within the powers of the Hon ble Supreme Court and a party before the Tribunal cannot be contending that a particular decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court was not considered by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. To elaborate, ajudgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding and to be followed religiously by the Tribunal till such time as the Hon ble Supreme Court expresses a view to the contrary. 46. Further all decisions cited by the parties in this reference have been considered whether specifically discussed or not. 47. The matter is now directed to be listed before the Division Bench for passing an order in accordance with the majority opinion.
-
2003 (8) TMI 178 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... denied depreciation claimed by the assessee for its commercial use. The learned CIT(A) accepted that 90 per cent of the space is let out and only 10 per cent is held for business use and allowed proportionate depreciation. This has been so stated without factually ascertaining the disclosure of maintenance charges received from the depositors. We, therefore, restore the issue to the AO with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee afresh. In case it is found that maintenance charges per sq. ft. received from the depositors have been assessed under the head Income from business , then the space so let out has to be treated as commercial exploitation by the assessee and used for business. Depreciation claim shall be allowed to the assessee after giving proper opportunity and verification of the factual aspect of the matter. 30. In the result assessee rsquo s appeal for asst. yr. 1988-89 stands dismissed and appeal for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 stands partly allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 177 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... ther hand, has submitted that in tax audit report a sum of Rs. 12,76,373 was shown as entertainment expenses and the assessee itself has claimed the expenditure at 35 per cent of the employees participation. In the light of categorical statement of the assessee, 100 per cent expenditure cannot be treated as incurred on seminars conducted for the assessee rsquo s employees only. 32. On careful perusal of the record in the light of rival submissions, we find that the assessee itself has claimed 35 per cent participation of its employees in all these seminars. On a careful perusal of the break-up of the expenses and material available on record, we find that the CIT(A) has already given proper directions to the AO to allow 35 per cent of such expenditure on account of employees rsquo participation. Since the CIT(A) has properly adjudicated the impugned issue and we do not find any infirmity therein, we uphold his order. 33. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 176 - ITAT DELHI-C
Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... quashed the assessment itself. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee in case of firm is allowed. 22. The appeal of the department in case of the firm M/s.ChandraAgencieshas become infructuous, as we have already quashed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 23. The appeals in case of both the partners are also allowed as the assessments in these cases were completed on the basis of share of profit distributed in the hands of the partners. The assessment in the case of the firm has already been quashed, therefore, there is no question of assessing the share of profit in the hands of partners. Accordingly the appeals of the partners are also allowed. 24. The appeals of the department in case of two partners have become infructuous because they were completed on the basis of assessment order in case of firm, which has already been quashed here by us above. 25. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the department are dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 175 - ITAT DELHI-A
Block Assessment in search case ... ... ... ... ..... nying the fact that the interest has accrued. The interest is the income of the assessee. The said income has arisen out of the loan. As the income has arisen to the assessee and the income is substantiated by the documents seized, we fail to understand as to how the assessee can have a grievance to the said addition. We, therefore, do, not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer on this account, and, therefore, have no, hesitation in rejecting this ground of appeal. 41. This brings us to Ground No.8 of the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,98,351 on account of cash other than at Ground No.5. 42. We have scanned through the order of the CIT(A) and find that this does not arise out of the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, this ground of appeal is hereby rejected. 43. Consequent to the discussion above the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms above.
-
2003 (8) TMI 174 - ITAT DELHI-A
Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... ments of salaries. If the interpretation put forth by assessee s counsel is accepted, then the proviso to section 40(a)(z) would become redundant. Hence such interpretation cannot be accepted. In our considered opinion, the prohibitive provisions should be construed in the manner which helps the honest and law-abiding assessees and discourage the defaulter assessees. However, the Legislature s intention is very clear and does not allow deduction if tax has not been deducted or paid within prescribed time under Chapter XVII-B. Admittedly, neither the tax was deducted at source nor payment of tax was made as per the provisions of Chapter XVII-B. Tax was only paid after long period of three years from the end of financial year concerned to avoid penalty/prosecution and, therefore, no benefit can be given to assessee on that account for the reasons given by us. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this account. 48. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 173 - ITAT DELHI
Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... which reference has been made by the learned CIT(A) is about the assessment order passed against the deceased person. So far as the present case is concerned, in this case the assessment was passed on the legal heir of the assessee who was representing the deceased and not against the deceased person. In view of the above, I am not convinced with the argument raised by the assessee. On the other hand, I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned DR. In fact, the ratio of decisions in the case of Jai Prakash Singh is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds taken by the department is allowed. ITA No. 3049/D/2000 24. The facts of the ITA No. 3046/D/99 are identical and identical grounds have been taken in this appeal for assessment year 1993-94 also. This appeal involving the identical grounds is, therefore, allowed on the basis of reasons adopted by me, while deciding ITA No. 3046/D/2000.
............
|
