|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallow the claim of the assessee on payment of brokerage and commission - commission had only been paid to sister concern and assessee did not produce any evidence from the party to whom the commission is stated to have been paid.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1086 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... r section 40(a)(i) in respect of consultancy charges paid to various persons outside India. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has rightly observed that the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made only if taxes are not withheld on income chargeable to tax in India. In the present case there is no acquisition of technical knowledge which could be independently applied by the assessee. Therefore, the payment could not be construed as if for technical services. The entire services were rendered outside India. There is no permanent establishment for the non resident in India. In these circumstances the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) has rightly deleted the disallowance of ₹ 18,99,269/-. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 15. The Revenue is partly successful in its appeal. 16. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are partly allowed. Orders pronounced on Wednesday, the 17th of October, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1085 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mptive income and in this manner the order of DRP was set aside and AO was directed not to include the amount of service tax in the total receipts for determining the income under section 44BB. 8. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines(supra), which has considered the decision relied upon by ld D.R., we decide this issue in favour of assessee. It may also be mentioned that later on Delhi ITAT vide its decision dated 29.6.2012 in the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc (supra) has admitted the position that service tax is a statutory liability which does not involve any element of profit and, therefore, cannot be included in the total receipts for determining presumptive income under section 44BB. Therefore, assessee's appeal is allowed on the issue raised before us. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012 .
-
2012 (10) TMI 1084 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is concerned. o p /o p In the instant case, the application for condonation of delay was rightly rejected as per the then law which on reproduction reads as under o p /o p Section 260-A o p /o p (1). ..…................. o p /o p (2). …............... o p /o p (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. o p /o p Thus, on 11.12.2009 (when the instant appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation), there was no discretion with the court to condone the delay. A discretion has come to the court by virtue of the amendment by inserting the provision of Section 260-A (2A) of the Act. o p /o p In view of above, the appeal in question was dismissed as per the then law and the subsequent amendment is not applicable as the matter has already attained finality. o p /o p Thus, we find no merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2012 (10) TMI 1083 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ing the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) in respect of the Housing Project “Rohan Heights” were not fulfilled, the assessee withdrew his claim. We further find that so far as disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) is concerned, i.e. towards non-deduction of the TDS, nowhere it is the case of the A.O that any bogus claim is made by the assessee. In our opinion, the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). In the said case, their Lordships have held that merely because the claim is disallowed which is otherwise bonafide, the assessee cannot be subjected to penal consequences u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, the Ld CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail. We find no reason to take different view but confirm the order of the CIT(A). 7. In result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19th October 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Management P. Ltd. 26 SOT 603 wherein it was held that Rule 8D would be applicable retrospectively. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1, Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and for the year prior to assessment year 2008-09, the disallowance u/s 14A has to be made on some reasonable basis. Keeping in view the said decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to the AO to recompute the disallowance to be made u/s 14A on some reasonable basis. Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1081 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... " 7. We are in considered agreement with the views so expressed by the Hon'ble Authority for Advance Ruling. We adopt the reasoning of the Hon'ble AAR and, respectfully following the same, approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A) who has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The same is upheld. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 4. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) who has rightly held that there is no question of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in all these cases. Same is upheld. 5. As a result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of October 2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1080 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... short period or for a number of days would not be capital gain. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has rightly taken the view that the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No.616/2008 in the case of ACIT Vs. Dineshbhai C. Patel (HUF) is clearly applicable in the case of the assessee. The decision of the coordinate bench which has been approved by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. We cannot take a different view. We noted that the Nagpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dineshbhai C. Patel (supra) has followed the decision of Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT (supra), that decision has also been approved by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and SLP against that decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. We accordingly, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals. 17. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 16.10.2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1079 - ITAT DELHI
Whether TDS to be deducted u/s 194C @1% or u/s 194J @10% - Nature of contract - services availed are on contract basis or technical services - contract for collection of data, locating and marketing of certain buildings, office etc. - Held that:- all technical work was performed by assessee himself and the parties from whom work was out-sourced has performed, non-skilled work either by supplying non-skilled labours at the site for helping assessee to monitor the work or by specialized machines - 194J suggest that professional service would constitute, all services which are rendered by a person in the course of carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession etc - The jobs availed by the assessee from the persons did not fall within the ambit of this explanation, rather they are ancillary jobs connected with main performed by the assessee, under clause F & I of Explanation-1 to section 194C - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1078 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue and in favour of the assessee”. 15. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), which is binding on us and the consistent view of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal including the decision in GKR Charities (supra) wherein the Tribunal after considering the decision cited by the ld. D.R. in Lissie Medical Institutions, Kochi has held that it is settled principle of law that where there are two different decisions of High Courts, one favourable to the assessee should be followed, upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. The ground taken by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 5-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rebate u/s 88E not allowable to the assessee while computation u/s 115JB - MAT - Held that:- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Horizon Capital Limited [2011 (10) TMI 489 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that while computing the total income under Section 115JB of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the amount equal to the STT paid by him in respect of the taxable securities transactions entered into in the course of business during the previous year. Since this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision supra , we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Cit(A).
-
2012 (10) TMI 1075 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in the remaining months nor could any addition be made towards suppressed production in those months. Since the addition has been made by the A.O. without bringing any concrete material on record to show that assessee has received job work charges more than what has been recorded in his books of account, the addition cannot be sustained. We further find that the A.O. has not even made any enquiries from the persons who have made payments to the assessee to ascertain as to whether or not there has been any suppressed production on the part of the assessee. We further find that on similar facts the Benches of this Tribunal in various cases have held that addition is not sustainable. Since the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decisions of the Tribunal on the issue, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby confirmed. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following questions only:-
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing ₹ 1,33,99,935/- paid to M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. under section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of ₹ 38,81,250/- had really accrued on the inter corporate deposit with Nipun Investment Pvt. Ltd?"
-
2012 (10) TMI 1071 - ITAT DELHI
Additions on account of unexplained purchases u/s 69C - sale/ purchase made in cash as genuine - disallowance of expenditure - Held that:- there cannot be addition u/s 69C for expenses recorded in the books - sec 69C refers to the source of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself - decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhika Creation [2010 (4) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- all sales made by the assessee stood recorded in the books, which included the sales and purchase vouchers and stock registers maintained on a day-to-day basis - Decided in favor of assessee
Genuineness of cash expenditure - Held that:- The expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business - disallowance was made completely on ad hoc basis - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1070 - ITAT JODHPUR
Deduction of tax at source (TDS) for payments made to RSAMB for the construction and repair work - Held that:- Decision of Jodhpur Bench rendered in the similar case [2011 (12) TMI 598 - ITAT JODHPUR] wherein held the funds so provided by the KUMS to Agricultural Produce Marketing Board are not refundable but are to be utilized for the specific purposes. The contribution made by KUMS to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board is an application of income. The contracts if any are made by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board with the parties, therefore, there is no case of any deduction of tax at source by the assessee, moreover, in the case of the trust or society registered u/s 12A of the Act, the profit is to be computed on the basis of the commercial principles. The income is not be computed under different heads. Hence the provisions of Section 40a(ia) are not applicable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1069 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 29/03/2006 is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act and, hence, the same is to be treated as invalid return and no cognizance can be given to the above return and hence that the AO has duly considered and alleged the same as return filed out of time is not correct in as much as the order u/s 154 clearly states that the order u/s 143 dated 29/03/2006 for the year under consideration was passed after taking into consideration all the facts putforth regarding the above issues, which were considered during the assessment proceedings and the order was finalized, which could not be the case if the returns were treated as non-est. 23. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT is correct and the M.A. filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 24. In the result, the M.A. filed by the revenue is dismissed. 25. To sum up, both the M.As. filed by the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1068 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ect on the profit of the company. Being convinced with these submissions and following the first appellate order on identical issue for the assessment year 2006-07, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. 5. Having gone through the order dated 31st January,2012 of the Tribunal (supra) for the assessment year 2006-07 in the case of assessee, relied upon by the Ld. AR, we find that an identical issue under similar facts has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. In other words the first appellate order for the assessment year 2006-07 on an identical issue following which the first appellate authority has allowed the appeal on the issue in favour of the assessee, has been approved by the Tribunal vide said order dated 31.1.2012. Under these circumstances we do not find infirmity in the first appellate order. The same is upheld. In the result ground raised is rejected. 6. Consequently appeal is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 26th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1067 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ady declared in the hands of the said partners which again was accepted by the Department. Having regard to all these facts of the case as recorded by the learned CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order which have remained uncontroverted/unrebuted by the learned DR, we are of the view that the source of jewellery in the hands of the partners of the assessee firm was duly explained and the said jewellery having been introduced by the partners in the assessee firm in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2003-04, addition u/s 69 or 69A on account of the said jewellery treating the same as unexplained cannot be made in the year under consideration. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 17th day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1066 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... age of stock when a comparison was made with the book stock and the stock found at the business premises of the assessee. Such short stock could only be deemed as sales made outside the books. Parties before us admit that investment in the purchase of goods dealt by the assessee is duly accounted for in the books of account. That being so, entire amount of sales could not have been brought to tax. It is only the gross profit margin on the sales effected outside the books by the assessee, could be alone treated as his income. We, therefore, direct the AO to apply the gross profit margin as declared by the assessee 23 on the sales of ₹ 2,98,629/-. The addition to that extent stands sustained and balance of the addition is directed to be deleted. 8. Ground No. 4 has not been pressed. The same has stands dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed as announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 11-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1065 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in the remaining months nor could any addition be made towards suppressed production in those months. Since the addition has been made by the A.O. without bringing any concrete material on record to show that assessee has received job work charges more than what has been recorded in his books of account, the addition cannot be sustained. We further find that the A.O. has not even made any enquiries from the persons who have made payments to the assessee to ascertain as to whether or not there has been any suppressed production on the part of the assessee. We further find that on similar facts the Benches of this Tribunal in various cases have held that addition is not sustainable. Since the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decisions of the Tribunal on the issue, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby confirmed. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2012
............
|
