|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1009 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1201
... ...
... ... ..... was in respect of bonus shares and held that bonus shares come into existence when a resolution is passed by company at a general meeting for capitalizing as fully paid up and Board of Directors allotted fully paid up bonus shares to the share-holders in the proportion of their respective holdings. Till then, it could not be said that the bonus shares came in existence. An important observation was made by the Hon'ble Court that the bonus shares could not be said to be acquired by a shareholder before they come into existence by allotment. Meaning thereby, the allotment of a share is a day when an investor acquired the domain over the shares and the date of allotment is therefore is the date of acquisition. Therefore in totality this judgment also supports the view expressed hereinabove, with the result this ground of the revenue stands dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 29th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1200
... ...
... ... ..... titled to deduction under section 10 IB(10) of the Act subject to the verification of the existence of commercial area in the project Vidhi Complex. The fact that the commercial complex exists in the Amurt Dham Project would not be relevant for denying the claiming of the assessee for deduction under section 80 IB(10) of the Act for the Project Vidhi Complex. With the aforesaid observation we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim for deduction under section 80 IB(10) of the Act after verifying the commercial area in the project Vidhi complex. For statistical purposes appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Respectfully following the above decision we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act after verifying the commercial area in the project Vidhi Complex. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 15th day of July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1199
... ...
... ... ..... s incurred in connection with the retention of control and management, which were disallowed and in such a case penalty cannot be levied as it was not a case of concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 271(1)(c). The decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1198
... ...
... ... ..... ctor, therefore, claim of deduction cannot be allowed in view of the amendment in Section 80IB(10) brought by the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1.4.2001, which stipulates that the deduction u/s 80IB is allowed only in case of assessee being a Developer and not to a contractor. Here we agree with the observation of the ld. CIT and direct the AO to verify as to whether the assessee is merely a contractor or developer of the project. Only if it is found that the assessee is a Developer, then the deduction u/s 80IB can be allowed subject to fulfillment of other conditions. 21. Condition with regard to time period for completion of project before the specified date and the specified size of the house as provided u/s 80IB(10) are also required to be fulfilled. The AO should examine the compliance of these conditions also as per law. 22. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated above. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 6th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1197
Quantum of Deduction u/s 80M r/w 80AA - Revenue submitted that while determining the quantum of deduction admissible to the assessee u/s 80M, the expenditure incurred relating to the earning of dividend income has to be excluded therefrom - Reliance was placed on Section 14A which was incorporated by Finance Act 2001 retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1962 - HELD THAT:- Finance Act 2001 had inserted Section 14A with effect from 1.4.1962. According to the said Section, any expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning income which did not form part of the total income under the Act was not to be allowed as expenses. The Court in the case of PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S FEDERATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II [2011 (3) TMI 615 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], while defining the scope of Section 14A, incorporated retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1962, the apex Court had specifically recorded that the theory of apportionment of amount of expense between taxable and non taxable income stood widened by incorporation of Section 14A. It was further noticed that the expression ‘expenses incurred’ occurring in Section 14A referred to tax, salary, interest etc. in respect of which allowances are provided for under Sections 30 to 37.
In all fairness to assessee, section 14A as incorporated by Finance Act 2001, with effect from 1.4.1962, was not under consideration and, therefore, the same do not come to the rescue of the assessee - Decision against Assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1196
... ...
... ... ..... thin its jurisdiction to entertain the new ground by which the assessee trust claimed the benefit under section 11(2) and adjudicate upon it- Tribunal having found that the assessee trust had complied with all the requirements stipulated in s.11(2), it was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to benefits of s.11(2).” However, we prefer to set aside the issue relating to allowing of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment de-nova, after affording the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the documents that may be filed by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file necessary documents and details that may be called for by the Assessing Officer. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 4th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1195
... ...
... ... ..... de and the matter is restored back to the Assessing Authority for deciding the penalty proceedings de-novo. Since considerable time has already passed, therefore, it is expected that the Assessing Authority will pass such fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee (s) as aforesaid , within a period of six months from today. No costs. Sd/- (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI),J.” 2. Since admittedly, no opportunity was given in the present case to fill up the incomplete particulars in declaration form ST 18A besides all the relevant documents found at the time of checking of goods in movement, the matter deserves to be remanded back. 3. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed for statistical purposes and setting aside the order of the Tax Board dtd.21.10.2003 in appeal No.199/2003/Dungarpur and also the orders of the lower authorities, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority for decision afresh in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1194
... ...
... ... ..... .CIT(A) has appreciated the facts of the case and held as under “14. The submissions of the ARs do not make any sense to me. It is absolutely clear that it did not make any sense to the AO either. For the interest to be allowable as revenue expenditure, it necessarily had to be shown that the loan had been taken and utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the Assessee’s business. Since, this has not been done even in the appellate proceedings, the disallowance of the sum of ₹ 7,148 being the interest paid on LIC loan, will stand confirmed.” 11. On hearing the submissions of both the sides, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Rather, considering addition being trifle in nature, the same was not seriously contested. In view of this, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 12. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed but for statistical purposes. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 29th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1193
... ...
... ... ..... in the stamp value authority for the purpose of working out the capital gains on the property transferred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of ld. CIT(Appeals) and A.O. in this regard and remit the issue regarding computation of capital gains back to the file of the A.O. The A.O. shall proceed in accordance with law after considering the objection of the assessee for substituting the consideration as per the deed with the value adopted by stamp value authority for stamp duty purposes. If the assessee is able to show that there has been no dispute with regard to value fixed by the stamp value authority in an appeal or reference before any of the authority, then the Assessing Officer has to make a reference to the Valuation Officer in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 50C of the Act. Ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on 22nd July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1192
... ...
... ... ..... ee concerned in the assessment of the employee and unless and until the tax deduction certificate specifies the employee concerned there can be no corresponding credit given to the employee. 5.2 In the light of view taken in the aforecited decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Revenue having not placed any material before us so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, nor cited any contrary decision, we have no alternative but to uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, ground no.1 in the appeal is dismissed. 6. Ground nos. 2 and 4 in these appeals, are general in nature nor any submissions having been made before us on these grounds, dos not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.3 in these appeals, therefore, all these grounds are dismissed. 7. In the result, these two appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 29.7.2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1191
... ...
... ... ..... sales but this alone cannot be the basis to revise the G P rate of accounted sales also without bringing any other adverse material on record and hence, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect of the matter. Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that there is no evidence to show that the gross profit admitted in the books of account are incorrect and hence, there is no justification of making addition of ₹ 2,88,544/- because unrecorded sales are not forming part of books and there is no other adverse material brought on record. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 11. Grounds No. 1 & 2 of the revenue are rejected whereas Ground No.2 of the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed. 12. In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 13. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1190
... ...
... ... ..... or explanation regarding loss without any corroborative evidence. Confirmation of the parties were not produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A) or even before us. In absence of the same the acceptance of loss consecutively for the 3rd year is not possible. In our opinion, no prudent businessman will incur losses year after year which is against all human probabilities. Now even the books of accounts are also stated to be destroyed due to floods. Since the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee filed no evidence for the claim that it entered into sale transaction in advance and delivery took place later on and since nothing more could be produced before us to take a contrary view than the view already taken by the CIT(A), therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1189
... ...
... ... ..... way of a speaking order and in accordance with the law. The matter stands restored to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions as above. 8. Ground No. 1 in the both the appeals is thus allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. 3. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in a group case of the assessee’s group of cases. There are no distinguishing features in the facts of the said case vis-à-vis the facts of this case before us. 4. In this view of the matter, and following our decision in B K Textile’s case (supra), we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for recomputing the disallowance, if necessary, in the light of our observations in the said case which have been extracted above and which will apply mutatis mutandi here as well. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 29th day of July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1188
CENVAT credit - outdoor ‘catering services - whether outdoor catering service falls within the ambit of input service or not?
-
2011 (7) TMI 1187
... ...
... ... ..... ), in the next year it cannot be taken as capital gain. The facts of our case are in converse position in as much as the income from sale and purchase of shares was always declared and accepted by the assessee in the past as well as future as resulting into capital gains’, which fact has been accepted by the Revenue authorities. All of a sudden in this year alone it cannot be held that assessee was trader in shares. Taking the entire factual situation under consideration, we find that the learned CIT(A) was right in holding that the income from sale of shares is chargeable to tax under the head “capital gains” and not “business income”. 18. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, we hold that the assessee’s holdings of shares is to be treated as their investments and profit on sale of share should be treated as capital gains. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 15th day of July, 2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1186
... ...
... ... ..... t the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down under section 11(4A) of the Act, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. The question as to whether the income earned by the assessee is the business income was a question raised by the assessee by way of cross objection but the same has not been answered by the ITAT as infructuous. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1185
... ...
... ... ..... no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” From the above it is evident that Their Lordships have clearly laid down that merely an incorrect claim was made by the assessee, it would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to make the assessee liable for 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, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 22nd July, 2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1184
... ...
... ... ..... ould be entitled to deduction because there was no restriction regarding construction of commercial area and the only condition was that the undertaking should develop and build housing project approved by a local authority. In this appeal if it is held that the law as it existed in the A.Y. 2004-05 when the assessee submitted its proposal for slum rehabilitation and the permission for carrying out the development was accorded on 17th Nov. 2003 and when the assessee commenced development is to be applied even then the assessee to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) has to pass the test laid down by the Special Bench (Infra).” 13. Therefore we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to follow the order dt. 2.6.2009 of the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 7297 for assessment year 2004-05 and allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10). 14. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on this 29th day of July, 2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1183
|
Disallowance of Cash Purchases u/s 40A(3) - Assessee made purchases against which payments were made in cash exceeding 20,000 rupees at a time - CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance - Contention was assessee, being old lady had made payments due to business expediency and on such ground disallowance should not be made - HELD THAT:- In the relevant assessment year, as per Rule 6DD, there is no such exception provided to section 40A(3) of the Act that the assessee could make cash payment of ₹ 20,000/- or more at a time due to business exigencies. The circumstances under which the provisions of section 40A(3) will not be applicable, where payment in cash is more than ₹ 20,000/- is provided in Rule 6DD and the ground of business expediency has been deleted by the Amendment made by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 01.04.1996.
In the case before us, there is no dispute to the fact that assessee had made purchases against which the payments were made in cash exceeding 20,000 rupees at a time - authorities are justified to make disallowance @ 20% of cash purchases. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) - Decision against Assessee.
|
| |
-
2011 (7) TMI 1182
... ...
... ... ..... deduction u/s. 80HHC is to be computed on the basis of the profit of this year before set off of carry forward loss. The assessee also contended that deduction u/s. 80HHC is required to be computed based upon the book profit computed u/s. 115JB. According to the assessee the CIT(A) erred in confirming the calculation of profit on export turnover, for the purpose of book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. 53. In our opinion, the above ground is covered in earlier para No. 19 of this order in I.T.A. No. 809/Hyd/08 wherein we placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd., vs. CIT (327 ITR 305) and decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly this ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 54. In the result, assessee appeals in I.T.A. Nos. 236, 845/09 and 1462/Hyd/2010 are allowed and 1072/Hyd/04 is partly allowed. Revenue’s appeals in I.T. A. Nos. 809/Hyd/08, 935 and 936/Hyd/08 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2011.
............
|
