|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1233
... ...
... ... ..... ng activity of a business concern but safely it can be hold as a profit socking activity of an investor. Resultantly, our view goes in favour of the assessee, thus the grounds are allowed.” 11. In the instant case, from the facts, it is clear that the assessee, at the time of purchase of shares, had no intention of doing business. The intention, at the time of purchase of shares, is that of an investor. No borrowed funds were used and there was no subsequent purchase and sale of shares. Thus, on these factual matrix, we uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the income in question should be assessed under the head “Capital Gains” and not under the head “Income From Business”. Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. To sum up, in the result, appeal by the assessee as well as appeal by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1232
... ...
... ... ..... e case in the light of the above decisions, it is undisputed fact that the assessee had continued to show the amounts in question as liability in its balance sheet. The liabilities reflected in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liabilities. The learned CIT(A) also found that credits are very old however, he was not justified in holding that since confirmations of the creditors were not filed, therefore, they no longer exist. Merely because liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. The provisions of section 41 (1) of the IT Act thus would not apply to the matter. The issue is squarely covered by the order of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shri Nitin S. Garg (supra). We accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 5,14,616/-. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1231
... ...
... ... ..... legal proposition, we therefore hold that the ld.CIT(A) had gone wrong in directing the AO to apply a uniform rate of ₹ 100/- per sq.yrd. as “onmoney” alleged to have been received on all the sales transaction. In the absence of some specific evidence such an observation can be said to be merely on presumption or supposition. We hereby reverse the said finding of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to compute the addition of “on-money” in respect of those sales of plots which were found recorded in the said seized material. In this manner, the ground raised by the Cross Objector is hereby partly allowed. 9. Rest of the grounds in the Cross Objection are either consequential or do not require any specific adjudication at this stage, hence, treated as infructuous in nature. 10. In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals as well as Assessee’s cross objections are partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 26/ 08 /2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1230
Non occupancy charges - transfer fees / betterment charges - principle of mutuality - assess the rental income for letting out the terrace under the head income from house property subject to deduction u/s.24
-
2011 (8) TMI 1229
Income received on lease of a portion of terrace of the building and a wall of the building for the purpose of fixing of hoarding, neon sign, etc. - assessable under the head “Income From Business or Profession” or under the head “Income From Other Sources” - Held that:- Allow this ground raised by the assessee directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income in question under the head “Income From House Property”.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1228
Disallowance of interest and capital expenditure - Documents seized during the course of search - business by way of bogus unsecured loan - Income from undisclosed sources on receipt of money - deleting the addition u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- In present case, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in respect of Fort Royal projects for asst. yr. 2007-08. In regard to Revenue's appeals, additions made by AO on account of on-money receipts for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06 were also deleted by CIT(A) with the finding that since assessments for these years had already been completed under s. 143(3) of the Act before the date of search and nothing incriminating was found in course of search or survey in respect of receipt of on-money for these years, completed assessments for these years could not be disturbed and no addition on account of 'on-money' could be made merely on the basis of change of opinion. As the Revenue could not controvert the same.
THAT, no incriminating material or documents were found in course of the search or survey action with respect to the allowability or otherwise of the expenditure or interest expenses for any of the years under consideration. In the original assessments framed under s. 143(3) of the Act for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06, the AO after application of mind and detailed scrutiny of accounts had consciously allowed said expenses and interest On loan. However, later on while framing assessments under s. 144/153C for the said years, under identical circumstances vis-a-vis past, the AO opined that a part of such expenses and interest should have been capitalized to WIP. Accordingly, the same was added back by the AO under s. 144/153C merely on the basis of change of opinion in the guise of search assessment. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition. Accordingly, these two common issues of Revenue's appeals in IT(SS)A Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21/Kol/2011 are dismissed.
THAT, AO alleged that the assessee company was specifically asked for explanation but had not complied. Thus, the said sum of Rs.,10 lacs was added as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. we find that the allegations and so-called findings of AO serve no purpose as far as assessee is concerned. The AO has observed that 'few layers' had been identified with regard to the source of ₹ 10 lacs received from Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. but has not given any details regarding such layers. Further, the AO has failed to prove by bringing on record some cogent evidence that this amount of ₹ 10 lacs had actually been deposited by assessee company directly or indirectly through intermediaries into the account of Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. and as such, represented income from undisclosed sources of the assessee. it has successfully proved genuineness and source of loan by furnishing the requisite evidences in the form of IT return and financial statements of Toplight Vinimay (P) Ltd. evidencing receipt of loan for the relevant year and also confirmation of the said party. In view of these facts and circumstances, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1227
... ...
... ... ..... the order of AO. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the order of ld. CIT (Appeals). 7. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT Jodhpur in the case of Navneet K. Thakar (supra). There was no stamp duty imposed in this case as the land in question was transferred through unregistered sale deed. The amendment in section 50C came into force with effect from 1.10.2009 which is not applicable for the year under consideration as the year under consideration is 2006-07. Therefore, for this reason also the issue allowed by ld. CIT (A) in favour of assessee is justified. The finding of ld. CIT (A) remained uncontroverted, therefore, we confirm the finding of ld. CIT (A). 8. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. 9. The order is pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1226
... ...
... ... ..... n the subsequent year on deposit of defaulted TDS. In other words, the provisions of Section 194C had to be invoked first for considering the deeming provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) therefore settles the issue in Chapter XVII itself, which has been accepted by the assessee not to be further considered for disallowance on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and that too u/s.147/148. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) misdirected himself to consider the nature of accounting entries requiring such deduction of tax at source which had already been adjudicated upon by the Assessing Officer of TDS Circle. The amount of disallowance of ₹2,75,00,000 is therefore unjustified and without any basis. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the addition of ₹2,75,00,000 made on this account to be deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 5th AUGUST, 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1225
... ...
... ... ..... s the order of the AO and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 23. Having carefully heard the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the material available on record we find merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Ekta Promotors (P) Ltd (supra), wherein it has been held that section 234D which has been brought on the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003 cannot be applied to the assessment year 2003-04 or earlier years, but it will have application only with effect from assessment year 2004-05. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the AO was not justified in levying the interest under section 234D of the Act and accordingly the same is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is therefore allowed. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1224
... ...
... ... ..... ldquo;IMD Bonds”. There cannot be any doubt that “IMD bonds” falls in the category of “Securities”. Hence the receipt of securities without adequate consideration, i.e. Gifts in kind, is subjected to tax, only if it is received only on or after 1.10.2009. In the instant case, the impugned IMD amount has been received by the assessee prior to 1.10.2009. Hence, the provisions of section 56(2)(v), which was invoked by Ld. CIT is not applicable to the impugned transaction. We notice that similar view has been expressed by Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Anuj Agarwal, supra. Hence, the directions issued by Ld. CIT to tad the receipt of IMD Bonds u/s 56(2)(v) of the Act in the instant case do not have legal sanctity and accordingly the said direction is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT on this issue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 11.8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... s "regular books of accounts". 26. On the other hand, the Counsel of the assessee, appearing on behalf of the assessee, vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 27. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is pertinent to note that Shri Chitharbhai died on 01.01.2005. The figures mentioned on the loose paper are without any description at all i.e., no name of any party mentioned. All these written figures are naked and cannot be ascertained whether it pertained to amount or quantity or whether it is a receipt or expenditure. It does not bear the name of the assessee or any other party. These, being the facts, the ld. CIT(A) is legally and factually correct in deleting this addition. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal is rejected. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. The Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26.08.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... much as the assessing authority has also given independent reasons other than the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 59 (1), to arrive at a conclusion provisionally that 'Super Plasticizer' does not fall in any of the entries in the schedules and would thus fall in the residuary clause. As an interim measure, we stay the operation of the impugned amendment carried out in sub-section (5) of Section 59 of U.P. Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2009 (11 of 2009), with further directions that the order passed under Section 59 (1) shall be binding only upon such applicant, who makes an application/ representation to the Commissioner under Section 59 (1). These orders shall not have binding effect on all assessing authorities and appellate authorities, in respect of other persons/ dealers. It will be open to the petitioner to contend, and the assessing authority to decide whether goods sold by the petitioner will fall in Schedule V to be taxed as residuary item.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1221
Nature of receipt - Membership fee received from the members was treated as revenue receipt liable to tax
-
2011 (8) TMI 1220
... ...
... ... ..... the order of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). As stated above, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Ferros Industries Ltd. (supra) has approved the view of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal taken in the case of Kirloskar Engines Ltd. In ITA No 1039 & 1040/PN/2000 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 that in case of a limited company ad hoc disallowance out of expenditure incurred on telephone, vehicle etc., which are certified by the auditor of the Company as also the auditors under the Income Tax Act cannot be made. On the parity of reasoning, we find no justification for the ad hoc disallowance made lby the Assessing Officer out of legal and professional expense. In this view of the matter, we affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this aspect. Revenue fails on this Ground. 31. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1219
... ...
... ... ..... ), it is clear that the book results declared by the assessee shall have to be accepted. Therefore, there is no reason for the learned CIT(A) to maintain even part addition on this issue. The finding of facts recorded by the learned CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any material on record. We, therefore, confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A) with regard to the acceptance of the book results. However, the part addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) in a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- is set aside and the part addition maintained by him is also deleted by setting aside the order of the learned CIT(A) to that extent. In the result, the departmental appeal on ground No.1 is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee on ground No.1 and 2 is allowed.” In view of the above, we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 5/8/11.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... d disallowance of expenses on estimation basis were not found to be false or fabricated by the Assessing Officer. The disallowances were made only on technical point which was highly disputable as to decide the issue. The special bench of the Tribunal was required to be constituted. It was further observed that bad debts claimed by the assessee were not found to be bogus. It was further observed that the expenses claimed also were not found to be bogus or inflated. The disallowances were made on the basis of the facts and figures furnished by the assessee. 6. In view of the facts noted by the Tribunal and the conclusions arrived at, we do not find any reason to interfere when it is found that the assessee had made full disclosures and made claims which though were ultimately disallowed, were not found to be bogus and when it is found that the issue was highly debatable, the order deleting the penalty is not required to be interfered with. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1217
... ...
... ... ..... val merely because one particular expenditure is for an activity, which may be termed as spending for a particular religion. We find that in this case, no object is of religious nature. The expenditure has not been incurred on any rituals, but on spreading the moral values propounded by Shree Ram, to which we have adverted earlier. These values are of social use and do not have any religious contents. While some Hindus may consider Shree Ram to be god, others may consider him to be only a great person, who followed certain social values required to bring peace and harmony amongst people. Accordingly, we are of the view that the expenditure was not incurred for religious purpose and it was for charitable purpose. Therefore, it is held that the ld. CIT erred in not granting approval u/s. 80G. Accordingly, she is directed to grant the approval on the basis of application dated 24.03.2009. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1216
Income arising from transfer of shares as “Income from Capital Gains” instead of as “Income from Business & Profession” - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the transactions in question are investment in nature and therefore, income from sale of the shares of the 3 companies made during the year requires to be taxed as income under the head “capital gains”.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1215
Unexplained cash deposits - CIT (Appeals) correctly deleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence admitted and after proper verification of the same. CIT (Appeals) has himself has verified the evidence and has recorded a finding of fact that the source of deposit in the bank account has been explained by the assessee with the help of books of accounts and bank account of proprietorship concerns. Under such circumstances no purpose will be served by remitting back the matter to the assessing officer when the ld. CIT (Appeals) has himself had verified the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the source of deposit was duly verified. Merely because the assessing officer had objected would not be a ground for remitting the case back to the assessing officer particularly when the matter has been examined and decided by the ld. CIT (Appeals).
-
2011 (8) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... ion 80HHC. An assessee may well be entitled to a deduction in respect of the expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in the computation of the profits and gains of business or profession. However, for the purposes of computing the deduction under section 80HHC, the provisions which have been enacted by Parliament would have to be complied with. A deduction in excess of what is mandated by Parliament cannot be allowed on the theory that it is an incentive provision intended to encourage export. The extent of the deduction and the conditions subject to which the deduction should be granted, are matters for Parliament to legislate upon. Parliament having legislated, it would not be open to the court to deviate from the provisions which have been enacted in section 80HHC”. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on the 12th, day of Aug 2011.
............
|
