|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 182 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 1029
... ...
... ... ..... eted.” It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondentassessee that the aforesaid question posed for adjudication has been answered in favour of the assessee while determining question No.X in Income Tax Reference Nos.80 to 82 of 1982, decided on 16.9.2008. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue acknowledges the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed in view of the order passed by this Court on question No.X in ITR Nos.80 to 82 of 1982, decided on 16.9.2008.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1025
... ...
... ... ..... tnam, Vismai Rao, Ashish Gopal Garg, B. V. Balaram Das For the Respondent Radha Rangaswamy ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1024
... ...
... ... ..... iment of discretion available to the assessing officer which discretion has to be exercised in a logical and non arbitrary manner. We find that the ITAT has proceeded on the basis that a fixed rate of 2 of gross receipt is the tax deductable at source from all contractors big or small. The ITAT has held that this rate of TDS can be used to arrive at a reasonable estimated income and on this basis it has held that if 6 of gross receipts of the Contractor can be considered as his reasonable income, then his tax liability will be 1.8 in cases where tax rate is 30 i.e. for an individual and 2.1 where tax rate is 35 i.e. for a firm, company etc. It is on such basis that estimated income has been fixed at 6 of gross receipts. In this view of the matter, we do not find that the impugned order is illogical, unreasoned or arbitrary and in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere. The questions of law therefore, would not arise and the appeal stands summarily dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1017
... ...
... ... ..... h Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv.Mr. Ajay Vohra,Adv.Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1015
... ...
... ... ..... te that after the position of Law was brought to their notice, they have started accepting the money by cheque. Considering the above, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1012
... ...
... ... ..... he advance to the assessee. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in its latest decision in the case of Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO (supra) has been pleased to hold that once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons on the credits which are found in the books of the assessee, the assessee’s onus stands discharged and the later is not further required to prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him and, therefore, the addition under s. 68 cannot be sustained in the absence of anything to establish that the source of the creditor’s deposit flew from the assessee itself. In view of these decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue under the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above. The first appellate order is thus upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1009
... ...
... ... ..... not agree with the explanation of the assessee with regard to lower consideration disclosed by him, he should refer the matter back to DVO for getting some market rate established as on date of sale to arrive at correct consideration and restore the matter back to the file of AO with a direction that he should refer the matter of valuation in the light of section (2) of section 50C to DVO for determining the correct consideration of flat sold by the assessee. 9. In view of the above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the AO with a direction that the AO shall refer the matter for valuation in the light of sub section (2) of section 50C to 'DVO' for determining correct consideration of flat sold by the assessee. 10. At the time of hearing, the Ld AR did not press ground No.6, therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 20.03.2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1008
... ...
... ... ..... e trading in shares. We, therefore, answer the question posed to us in affirmative. As we have held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A are retrospective in nature and the resultant Rule 8D would also fall on the same line, then the disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be computed with reference to the mandate of these provisions. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders in all the cases before us and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officers for computing the disallowance in terms of section 14A read with Rule 8D". 9. Following the above decision of the Special Bench, we restore this matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A as per the guidance given by the Special Bench and by applying Rule 8D. Thus, this issue is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. 11. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of the hearing, on the 20.03.2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1007
... ...
... ... ..... was made by the AO to the TPO u/s. 92CA of the Act and the TPO after examination of the relevant facts has concluded that all that international transactions are carried out at arm's length price and accepted the mark-up of 6.45 on software development services shown by the assessee company. The revenue could not controvert the submission of the assessee that the AO could not show that how the facts of the case of M/s. Sapien ad Corporation are similar to the facts of the case of the assessee. In these facts of the case, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that in the absence of any evidence to suggest or indicate that there exists an arrangement for avoidance of tax and in deleting the addition made being without sufficient basis and accordingly the order of CIT(A) is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6.3.2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1006
... ...
... ... ..... odity produced by the respondent, the increase in the installed capacity of the pulp plant on account of the installation of the de-inking machinery will entitle the respondent for the benefit of additional depreciation. The finding of the Tribunal that there has been increase in the installed capacity of the production of pulp in terms of the requirement of the provision in the statute is not disputed in the appeal filed by the Revenue. On the other hand their contention is that the installed capacity should have reference to only final product, that is newsprint. We are unable to uphold this contWention of the Revenue and we feel that the intermediary product viz., pulp produced by the company being a marketable commodity the increase in the installed capacity for claiming benefit of additional depreciation under the above provision can be in the production of intermediary viz., pulp. We therefore, agree with the finding of the Tribunal and dismiss the Departmental appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1003
Disallowance of expenditure - purchases of raw material - genuineness of transactions not proved - manufacturer of tractor lights - CIT(A) allowed the appeal and remanded case back to AO for fresh consideration - second round AO allowed the expenses claimed in respect of payments made to five out of the ten parties - remaining five parties it was found that three parties could not be served at given addresses but other two parties who had appeared - Tribunal has accepted the version of the assessee, believing in the genuineness of the transactions namely, purchase of raw material from five parties.
HELD THAT:- The Tribunal took into consideration some other factors as well and the cumulative effect of all these factors clearly established that they were genuine suppliers who had received payment by means of Account Payee cheques. The Tribunal rightly concluded that they were small dealers/job workers and were mainly dealing with the assessee only. It is also pointed out by the Tribunal that transactions were entered into with these suppliers during the financial year ending on 31-3-1996 and an inquiry was conducted in the year 2002 and it was not unusual for such small parties to have left in between. Thus, these two cases are at par with those in respect of which expenditure is allowed.
The reason for disallowing expenditure in respect of other four parties was that when the notices were sent they were not available. we are of the opinion that even in their absence the assessee had produced sufficient material to show payments, namely the bank accounts of such parties. We are constrained to note that if the summons are not issued to those parties or the same could not be served at the given addresses, AO could have obtained their addresses from the banks as the bank statements were produced and could have made an endeavour to serve those parties at the said addresses.
That the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is plausible and based on evidence. There is no perversity in this finding. Hardly any question of law arises which needs to be determined in the present appeal.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as being devoid of any merits.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1002
... ...
... ... ..... Officer to verify the same. Directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim could be given in exercise of power under section 263, but if the very jurisdiction of the CIT did not exist for the reason that there was no loss to the Revenue by the reason of non-application of mind of the Assessing Officer, then there is lack of jurisdiction. Therefore the direction of the CIT cannot be said to be within the parameters of section 263. One would have appreciated, if the CIT on verification had found that the payment had not been made within the time allowed under section 43B. So, however, no such finding had been recorded. We are therefore of the considered view that one of the twin conditions under section 263, as required, is not satisfied, even in respect of the provision of ₹ 8 crores. The order of the CIT under section 263 is therefore, not justified. The same is accordingly cancelled. 10. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 20.03.2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1001
... ...
... ... ..... the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co.’s case (supra) as well as in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh’s case (supra). Having given our thoughtful consideration, and in view of the factual position explained in paragraph 8 , we are satisfied that it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue so as to treat the sale of agricultural land at the hands of the respondent-assessee as falling under the head "Profit and gain from business and profession". We, therefore, uphold the determination rendered by the CIT vide an order dated 24-10-2007 , as also order dated 26-6-2008 passed by the ITAT, to the effect that the earnings of the respondent-assessee from sale transaction of agricultural land is liable to be treated as a "Capital gain". 12. For the reasons recorded here-in-above, we find no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1000
... ...
... ... ..... ; and (ii) transit breakages while computing profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed these two liabilities holding that the amount was set aside for meeting unascertained liabilities and had to be added back. CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer, 17. We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions. As regards the provision for doubtful bad debts, the issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CTI vs. HCL Comnet Systems 305 ITR 409 (SC). We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to reduce the provision for bad debts while computing the book profit under section 115J. As regards transit breakage is concerned, we have already held that the provision is not made on scientific basis and, therefore, is not an allowable deduction and consequently the order of the CIT (Appeals) is to be upheld. We hold accordingly. 18. In the result, all the appeals are disposed of as above.
-
2009 (3) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue or as suggested by the assessee, the taxable component would be the same. The question therefore, need not be considered and gone into. In so far as second question is concerned, the tribunal recorded a finding of fact. That expenses has been incurred on advertisement. In the light of that, this is purely a question of fact. The question of law would not arise. In so far as third question is concerned, it is an additional ground raised by the assessee which has been referred to the A.O. for consideration according to law. Considering the above, in our opinion, the appeal does not survive which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 988
... ...
... ... ..... n in the case of KR.M. Marine Exports Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Mad.), (2007) 288 ITR 151. In that decision it was held that freezing and processing charges would definitely form part of one of the components of business profits, as the said activity would have a direct and immediate nexus to the activity of export. The said decision also pertained to assessment year, 1994-95. Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the said decision of the High Court has not been challenged by the Revenue and has thus, attained finality. In view of the above, we decline to entertain the petition on the said question. Regarding question No.3, we find that the said question does not arise from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Perhaps for this reason the High Court has not dealt with that question. In that view of the matter no fault can be found with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2009 (3) TMI 909
Penalty imposed - promotion of respondent to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Held that:- It is a case where in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we should not interfere with the direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. From the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 25.11.2005, it is clear that the DPC had found the respondent fit for promotion even after taking into consideration the penalty imposed upon the respondent herein. The note of the Cabinet Secretary, which was prepared for ACC, has to be read in this backdrop. The Tribunal is right that it is only because the period of penalty had not been over the recommendation was that the respondent should not be promoted at that stage. Matter would have been different if after taking into consideration the said penalty, the DPC would have held the respondent to be "unfit" for promotion inasmuch as it is within the jurisdiction of the DPC to check the overall record of the candidate. However, as mentioned above, penalty was taken into consideration.
We may also take note of Para 12.2 of the Government Instructions dated 30.8.1990 as per which, when the employee is found fit for promotion, notwithstanding the penalty, such promotion is to be given after the currency of the penalty. Moreover, had the intention of ACC was to deny the promotion outright, even when DPC had recommended the case of the respondent for promotion finding him "fit", as per the procedure ACC would have sent the matter back to the DPC, which was not done.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... is a recognised method. In the facts and circumstances of the case elaborately discussed in paragraphs above, we find that the Assessing Officer is justified in rejecting the accounts of the assessee and estimating the income on a reasonable basis. The Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee-firm at 8 percent for the assessment year under consideration, on total receipts, before allowing interest and depreciation. This rate of estimate of 8 percent before providing for substantial amount of depreciation and interest is found to be very reasonable. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the quantum aspect as well. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the same and restore the order of the Assessing Officer into operation. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. The order pronounced on the 12th day of March, 2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 902
... ...
... ... ..... the change in the method of closing stock valuation. The present case is too simple. Here, there is no change in the method of accounting. Here the method of stock valuation is consistently followed. But the assessee has excluded damaged stocks from the stock to be carried forward. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in these two cases are sustainable in law and the grounds raised by the Revenue are without merit. They are liable to be dismissed. The cross-objections are time-barred by two days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, we condone the delay. The cross-objections filed by the assessee are in substance to support the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, they are liable to be dismissed as infructuous. In result, the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on the 19th day of March, 2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 901
Taxability of Interest received u/s.244A - Whether CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition that the order granting interest u/s 244A has not reached finality - return for AY 2001-02 was filed showing loss - assessment order passed u/s 143(3), determined loss - additions made by AO, representing interest on refund allowed by the Department u/s 244A - CIT(A) deleted this addition - ITAT in its order (supra), in the assessee’s own case for the AY 1984-85, decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
HELD THAT:- We will proceed to discuss the decision of the ITAT, (SB) in the case of Avada Trading Co. P. Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI], held that the interest, granted by the Department to the assessee u/s 244A , along with the refund, fully satisfies the requirements of sections 4 and 5 and, therefore, it has to be taxed in the year of its receipt.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1954 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] squarely supports this view. The fact that the quantum of such interest might vary at a later date, because of one of the reasons mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 244A, does not affect this conclusion.
Therefore, we respectfully follow the decision of the Tribunal (SB) in Avada Trading Co. P. Ltd [2006 (1) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] and reverse the orders of CIT(A) on this point and restore those of the both the years. The ground is accordingly, allowed.
........
|
