|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 587 Records
-
2011 (10) TMI 680 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reign currency should be excluded from the total turnover the same reduced from export turnover, 2. This question had come up for consideration before this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., in ITA No. 70/2009 and other connected cases disposed off on 30th August, 2011. After referring to various Judgments and referring to various expenses it was held that while computing the consideration received from such export turnover, the expenses incurred towards freight, telecommunication charges, or insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things or computer software outside India, or expenses if any incurred in foreign exchange in providing the technical service outside India should not be included. The Judgment passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law declared by this Court. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2011 (10) TMI 679 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed. As for the second issue of disallowance of bad debts, we find that the CIT(A) has discussed the relevant decisions on the issue and has rightly concluded that there was no dispute that the transactions of debts/ICDs had actually taken place and interest thereon had been offered to tax over the years and assessed as business income in the hands of the assessee, and as such, write off of such debts after initiation of legal proceedings by the assessee could not be considered as lacking bona fides. There being no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in the facts of the case on this issue and the issue being covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05, we hold that there is no merit in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue on this issue as well. We accordingly reject the same. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 4.10.2011
-
2011 (10) TMI 678 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... t in totality the books of account vis-à-vis audit report of the assessee was not correct, therefore, book result shown by the assessee deserves to be rejected. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and direct the AO to reject the books of account keeping in view the bogus payment entered by it in the books and also wrong certification given by the auditors in respect of correctness of books of account and wrong claim of transportation expenditure in the profit and loss account. To meet the end of justice, the AO is directed to apply 8 (Eight percent ) net profit rate with respect to the total contract receipt of ₹ 5,18,83,431/- shown by the assessee and to rework out the total income. We direct accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 677 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he assessment for A.Y. 2004-05 has relied on the assessment order for 2005-06 on the issue of disallowance of advertisement expenses and the facts of A.Y. 2005-06 are completely different from the A.Y. 2004-05 in view of the findings of the Third Member in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding that the reassessment proceedings are invalid. We accordingly uphold the same. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. C.O. No. 34/Mum/2011(By the assessee) 6. After hearing both the sides we find the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the reopening of the assessment has been dismissed. Therefore, the C.O. filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 19.10.2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 676 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... since ld.CIT(A) has estimated a figure of ₹ 20,000/- only and being trifle in nature, therefore need not to be disturbed. Even this ground of the Revenue has no force, hence dismissed. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed. Assessee’s Cross Objection No.85/Ahd/2007 (arising out of ITA No.499/Ahd/2007) 8. Grounds raised read as under 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that some disallowance u/s.14A was warranted in this case. 2. Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in quantifying disallowance u/s.14A in a sum of ₹ 20,000. 8.1. In the light of the above discussion and considering the smallness of the disallowance affirmed by ld.CIT(A), the cross objection has not been pressed by the assessee. The same is hereby dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the Assessee both are dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 675 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - share application money - proof of identity of the subscribers - Held that:- AO did not bring any material on record, suggesting that the six parties provided accommodation entries to the assessee and that the money received from these parties was ,in fact, the assessee's own undisclosed income , routed back in the guise of share application. As the assessee submitted copies of share application forms, containing names, addresses, PAN, Bank details and confirmations of the investors. In these circumstances, addition deleted while holding that the assessee discharged the initial onus of establishing the identity of the subscribers and the bonafide of the transactions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (10) TMI 674 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ) wherein at page 20 vide para 3.4.1, the Tribunal held as under “3.4.1 We have heard both the parties, perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of administrative expenses to the tune of ₹ 11,70,000/-. The expenses related to travelling, motor vehicle, insurance, telephone, printing and stationery etc. We have already held that income from the business centre has to be assessed as business income. We therefore hold that the claim will be allowable while computing the business income from the service centre. We therefore dismiss the ground raised by the revenue.” 58. Respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal in AY 2003- 04, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 59. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 60. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 673 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... sible and the assessee was directed to submit the corrected TDS certificate on 2.3.1998. Vide order u/s 143(3)/154 dated 23rd July, 1998 assessee was given credit for these corrected TDS certificates and refund along with interest was made to the assessee. Now the question arises for which period the interest should be disallowed. The obvious reply is that the interest can be disallowed only for the period of which the delay was caused on behest of the assessee. We find that the delay is attributable to the assessee, if any, is only for five months, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer is directed to disallow the interest portion of only 5 months which caused due to the delay on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes only. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes Order was pronounced in the open in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2011 (10) TMI 672 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 80G(5)(vi) - Held that:- All the authorities working under the control of CBDT are bound to follow the instructions issued by the CBDT. Therefore, it has to be held that as assessee’s existing approval was expiring on or after the 1st day of October, 2009, the same shall be deemed to have been extended in perpetuity unless specifically withdrawn. We have already mentioned that there is no material on record according to which it can be said that the approval granted to the assessee u/s 80G (5) was specifically withdrawn and what is rejected by the impugned order is the renewal application of the assessee which does not have any meaning in law as the assessee was not under an obligation to seek renewal as approval granted to it shall be deemed to have been extended in perpetuity. The aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Babu Hargovind Dayal Trust [2011 (2) TMI 1199 - Allahabad High Court] also support this proposition. Therefore, we vacate the order of ld. DIT (E) vide which the renewal application filed by the assessee for approval u/s 80G has been rejected. It is held that the approval granted to the assessee u/s 80G will act in perpetuity unless it is specifically withdrawn by the ld. DIT (E). The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid.
-
2011 (10) TMI 671 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 52,91,317/-. Therefore, it is prayed for stay of outstanding demand as mentioned above. 2. On the other hand, the learned departmental representative opposed for stay of outstanding demand. 3. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we direct the assessing authority not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the said outstanding demand up to 14-11-2011. This case is fixed for hearing on 14-11-2011 and this order of the Tribunal may be treated as notice of hearing and no separate notices will be sent to the parties concerned. We direct the assessee not to take any unnecessary adjournment on the date of hearing fixed. We also direct the parties to file paper books, if any, on or before 8-11-2011. 4. In the result, the Stay Application of the assessee is disposed off as indicated above. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 21-10-2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 670 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... by way of interest and salary to partners, allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii)/37(1) r.w.s. 40(b) of the Act, is only with reference to the capital and the profit disclosed thereby, i.e., on the basis of such books of accounts. We, therefore, do not find merit in the assessee’s claim. As rightly pointed out by the ld. CIT(A), the decision in the case of CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co., 156 CTR (Raj.) 290 is not applicable in the present case. The deduction of interest on capital and salary to partners was only with reference to the partnership deed; the Assessing Officer having estimated the net profit without reference to the claim for such deductions. It is not the assessee’s case in the instant case, that it has not been allowed the said claim as preferred per its furnished returns, and which stand accepted as such, i.e., except for the addition toward suppressed turnover/profits. 8. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (10) TMI 669 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... However, as regarding quantification also all the subsidiary companies of the General Insurance Corporation of India along with the assessee company has adopted the same method decided by the holding company i.e. General Insurance Corporation of India. o p /o p 13.1. Keeping in view of the above, we are of the view that the provision created on account of unidentified Motor Third Party claim will not fall under sub section 115JB (2) Explanation 1(c) of the IT Act. Therefore, no addition is required while computing the tax liability u/s 115JB of the IT Act. Hence we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer not to make any adjustment on account of the provision under unidentified Motor Third Party claim while computing the tax liability u/s 115JB of the IT Act. This ground of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p 14. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the court on 11.10.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (10) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncement of Constitution Bench judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellant and the proforma respondents for grant of a declaration that the acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed due to nonmaking of award for two years was pending before the High Court. 15. Although, the Division Bench has referred to a large number of judgments which lay down the proposition that the High Court would not entertain belated challenge to the land acquisition proceedings but the impugned judgment does not contain any discussion on this issue. That apart, we find that the appellant and the proforma respondent had moved the High Court without any delay. Rather, they had filed writ petition immediately after pronouncement of the award. Therefore, they could not have been non-suited by the Division Bench of the High Court by invoking the rule of laches. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is restored.
-
2011 (10) TMI 667 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - addition on account of share application money for allotment of shares u/s 68 - Held that:- If the Assessing Officer for whatever reasons has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to Section 147. It cannot be even the case of the assessee that its case is covered by the proviso u/s 147 as for application of proviso it is a condition precedent that assessment earlier should have been framed under Section 143 (3). Therefore, we find no force in the contention of the assessee that assessment should be quashed simply for the reason that initiation of re-assessment proceedings was invalid. We reject such ground of the assessee
In the present case, the assessee filed copies of PAN, acknowledgement of filing income-tax returns of the companies, their bank account, statements for the relevant period i.e., for the period when the cheques were cleared and the parties were not produced in spite of specific directions of the Assessing Officer instead of taking opportunities in this behalf. Keeping in view the fact for non-production of these parties coupled with the outcome of inquiry made by the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer has made the addition. The amount paid to the assessee by the share applicants has been shown to be debited in the respective bank accounts of the share applicants and if all these facts are seen, then, it will be a case where addition upheld by the CIT (A) cannot be held to be justified. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence placed on record by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the addition upheld by CIT (A) was not justified and the same requires deletion
Assessee has charged high premium on the shares for which no justification has been rendered - Held that:- During the year under consideration, the assessee has issued 2,50,000 shares of face value of ₹ 10 at a premium of ₹ 90 by way of private placement. The list of these parties is furnished at pages 249 and 250. To be precise, shares have been issued to 19 parties. The Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of share application money with respect to aforementioned 7 parties i.e., in respect of 34,500 shares allotted to those parties and, thus, in respect of balance 12 parties, share applicants of 2,15,500 shares, the Assessing Officer has accepted the genuineness of the share application. Therefore, it is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that the share application money rendered by the aforementioned seven parties was not genuine on the ground that it consisted of huge premium of ₹ 90 on the face value of ₹ 10/-. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the learned DR that on account of charging of heavy premium the share application should be considered non-genuine.
-
2011 (10) TMI 666 - ITAT KOLKATA
Transfer pricing adjustments - providing non sufficient opportunity - Held that:- Since the main contention of the assessee is that the Transfer Pricing Officer has not given sufficient opportunity we are of the considered view that the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO with the direction to obtain fresh report from the T.P.O. and the T.P.O. is directed to recomputed the transfer price after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Entitlement to plus or minus 5% adjustment as per section 92C(2) - Held that:- Only one price has been determined under (most appropriate method) for evaluating arms length price, the question of applicability of proviso 2 of section 92C(2) does not arise. Therefore assessee, was not entitled to the concession of plus or minus 5% as prescribed in the said provision.
Deletion of motor car expenses and payments for acquisition of motor cars - Held that:- Observations of the AO were correct as the vehicles were used wholly and exclusively by the appellant and therefore the ownership also was lying with the appellant. That the lessor was claiming depreciation cannot be the ultimate test for ownership of the lessor. On the other hand the CIT(A) wrongly held that the ownership did not pass on to the lessee and thus the financial charges or lease rent should be allowed. This is wrongly found as the lessor might have sold the assets to the lessee or the user of the vehicle.
Disallowance of provision for replacement guarantee - Held that:- The provisions are based on the previous years data and based on the sales and AO himself has allowed the provisions made by assessee in Assessement year 2004-05 while doing the assessment u/s 143 itself we are of the view that assessee is entitled to deduction of provisions.
Disallowance of advances written off - Held that:- As in the interest of justice we consider it fit to restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh verification and decide the same as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.
-
2011 (10) TMI 665 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... tions has referred that an adjustment entry was made on 28.2.2008 i.e. after the survey. It clearly shows that surrender in respect of these two lands as per statement was doubtful. It is also true that the AO has also not made any effort to inquire about the rate of land per bigha which was purchased. The assessee has been given a credit of ₹ 1,09,01,000/- as the same was disclosed in the books of accounts. We, therefore, feel that the issue is required to be reconsidered by the AO and the assessee will get opportunity to rebut the documents found at the time of survey. On the documents there is noting by the Accountant and he has also put the signatures and is stated that the amount was paid by him and therefore, the AO will also make an inquiry from the person from whom such lands were purchased. The assessment order is set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14 -10-2011
-
2011 (10) TMI 664 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d/2006 vide its order dated 4-12-2009 directed the assessing officer to estimate the income of the assessee at 8 on main contract receipts and at 5 of the sub-contract receipts. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Triveni Enterprises (supra), we are inclined to direct the assessing officer to estimate the income of the assessee at 8 on main contract receipts and at 5 of the sub-contract receipts. While doing so, the assessing officer is directed to reduce the departmental recoveries of ₹ 99,72,274 from the gross receipts for the purpose of arriving at the estimated profit since there is no profit element in so far as the said departmental recoveries are concerned. The payment of interest and salary to the partners shall be allowed subject to the limitation specified in section 40 b of the Act from the estimated income. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order was pronounced in the Court on 14- 10-2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 663 - ITAT MUMBAI
Treatment to loss - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of CIT(A) treating the loss from share trading as speculation loss and the same is therefore upheld.
Levy of interest u/s. 220(2) - Held that:- The original assessment order has been set aside by the Tribunal and matter restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment and therefore in view of the circular of CBDT No.334 Dt.3.4.1982 , the interest can be levied only from the date of default of the demand notice issued in pursuance of the fresh assessment order. The order of CIT(A) holding that interest under section 220(2) has to be levied from the date of default as per the original assessment order therefore cannot be sustained.
-
2011 (10) TMI 662 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ngs reproduced above, it is clear that the expenditure on interest was set off against the income from interest and the investment in the share and funds were out of the dividend proceeds. In view of this finding of fact, disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable.” The said ratio is in connection with interest expenditure in relation to section 14A of the Act. The issue raised by the assessee is against the indirect expenditure disallowed in view of provisions of section 14A of the Act. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd V DCIT, we uphold the disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- being expenditure relatable to the earning of the exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus dismissed. 14. The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19th day of October, 2011
-
2011 (10) TMI 661 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... king condonation of delay of 2912 days in filing the appeal. The Motion is thoroughly misconceived. Once an earlier Motion for condonation of delay was dismissed by this Court, there could be no occasion for the Department to take out a fresh Motion for condonation. The Motion is an abuse of the process of law and is dismissed with costs of ₹ 3,000/-.
............
|
