|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1064 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Del/2004 dtd.11.05.2007) he held that assessment was invalid because of invalid service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Since the assessment was held to be invalid, he did not deal with the merits of the additions made in the Assessment Order. All the remaining grounds were not considered on this technical point and same were treated as dismissed for statistical purposes. However, he dealt them on merits also and dismissed the same. 7. Before us, DR as well as the AR made the same submissions that were made for the AY.2003-04. From the facts available, it is clear that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued to/ served upon the assessee in time, for the AY under consideration. Hence, Assessment Order passed in pursuance of the said notice is held to be against the provisions of law. Upholding the order of the FAA, we reject the appeal filed by the AO. Appeal filed by the AO, for the AY. 2005-06, stands dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1063 - ITAT MADRAS
Double Taxation Relief in respect of the income from Bangkok branch - taxability of income under section 244A - provision of bad and doubtful debts -
-
2012 (10) TMI 1062 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the case, we are of the opinion that order passed by the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. He has rightly relied upon the case of Reliance Petro Chemicals (supra).We are of the opinion that deletion of penalty by him is fully justified. Details filed by the assessee-company with regard to four items discussed in para No.3 was result of a crime committed upon the assessee-company. In these circumstances Grounds of Appeal filed by the AO stand rejected.” As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the case of M/s Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. decided by the Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the said case and uphold the impugned orders of the learned CIT(Appeals) cancelling the penalties imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c). 6. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of Oct., 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1061 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that if the interest free funds are available to an assessee sufficient to meet with investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest free funds available. In the present case before us considering the finding of co-ordinate Bench and of the CIT (A). it can be presumed that assessee was having sufficient funds for investments.
In view of these facts and respectfully following the decision of High Court we are of the view that in the present case no interference is called for in the order of CIT (A) with respect to the disallowance pertaining to disallowance of interest amounting to ₹ 15,50,415/-. With respect to the disallowance of ₹ 1,39,125/-on account of administrative expenses, the factual position is that the assessee has stated it has not incurred any administrative expenditure A.O. has also not given a finding to the effect that the assessee has incurred expenditure towards exempt income.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1060 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tion for payment by Mr. R.K.Bavasa to the assessee. Thus the amount received by the assessee is not without any consideration. Therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(v) of the Act were not applicable. In that view of the matter we hold that the receipts by the assessee from Mr. R.K.Bavasa cannot be treated as income under section 56(2)(v) of the Act. The additions made by the AO are directed to be deleted. In view of the decision on the main provision we have not dealt with the other arguments regarding applicability of the exceptions set out in section 56(2)(v) of the Act.” 8. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) decline to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, rejected. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 17-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1059 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. in charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 30. Ground No.1 is similar to ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. For the reasons given by us in that year, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 31. Ground No.2 is similar to ground No.3 of assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. For the reasons given by us in that year this ground is dismissed. 32. Ground No.3 is similar to ground No.6 of assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. For the reasons given by us in that appeal this ground of the assessee is allowed. 33. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 31.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1058 - ITAT PUNE
Whether expenditures incurred by the assessee are "fringe Benefits" u/s 115WB(2) - expenditures like Entertainment, Auditors Travelling, Driver Salaries etc. - Held that:- the expenses prescribed therein are liable to be considered as fringe benefits only to the extent the same are incurred in consideration for employment - the entertainment expenses have been incurred for guests of the company - Auditors are not employees of the assessee
FBT on salary paid to driver - salary paid to a driver is taxable in his hands as Salary income and thus do not fall under of the provisions of section 115WB - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1057 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act - Held that:- the money advanced by the assessee to M/s. Agarwal Steel was towards purchase of steel - made trade advances, which are adjusted against the purchases made during the year - it is evident that the money advanced by the assessee to M/s. Agarwal Steel is not an interest free loan, but a trade advance - Decided in favor of assessee
Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) - whether TDS is applicable - Held that:- The amount has been paid by the assessee during the relevant previous year - no disallowance could be made under S.40a(ia) of the Act, in view of the Special Bench decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transports (supra)- Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1056 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e has not accrued, it could neither be brought to tax nor deduction in its respect claimed by, or allowed to, the assessee. The same though is crucial in the overall context of the case, inasmuch as only the real income, since accrued, can be assessed. Further, the value of the closing WIP, as assessed, shall be adopted as the opening WIP for the following year (also refer para 4.3). Also, as this is the first year of construction, and some qualifying conditions u/s. 80IB(10) are subject to satisfaction over time, which has since elapsed, the AO shall also, if not already so verified, i.e., while framing the assessment for any succeeding year(s), satisfy himself as to the satisfaction of those conditions, being, principally, though not limited to, the completion of the project within the stipulated time period, issuing definite findings in its respect. We decide the second issue accordingly. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1055 - ITAT MUMBAI
Distribution expenses - Whether business expenses u/s 37(1) - Held that:- assessee submitted the statement showing complete details of vouchers no. cheque no. date and name of the party and amount paid - AO has not brought on record any material to support that the expenses have not been incurred by the assessee - where original return had already been accepted u/s.143(1) before the search had taken place, adhoc disallowance made by AO is not justified - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1054 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest u/s 14A - legal validity of addition made in the assessment under section 153A - Held that:- time period for issue of notice had expired before date of search - Addition can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search - here the disallowance of interest was not based on seized material and therefore no assessment under section 153(3) - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- AO did have jurisdiction and disallowance had to be considered on merit - Tribunal held that the borrowed funds could not be held to be utilized wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as same were invested in the company with which the assessee had no business - disallowance of interest is confirmed - Decided against the assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rovisions of Section 158BD applied to the assessee. Notice U/s 158 BC issued." 7. On perusal of the same we are of the opinion, no satisfactory reasons are assigned by the Assessing Officer in order to issue a notice u/S 158BD as held by the Tribunal. In addition, we have also seen that the revenue did not show any reasons for non production of the reasons recorded for the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/S 158BD before the Tribunal when time was granted for one year to the revenue to produce the same. Even in this appeal, no explanation is offered except stating that reasons were recorded. When there is no explanation offered by the Revenue for non production of the document before the Tribunal for more than an year and having held that reasons recorded would not constitute satisfactory reasons, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1052 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 45.76 lacs, which was disallowed out of ₹ 54.76 lacs in assessment year 2006-07 and similarly in ssessment year 2008-09 ₹ 52.50 lacs was disallowed out of ₹ 67.50 lacs. The Tribunal in ITA No.202/Chd/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 in the appeal filed by the Revenue vide order dated 9.7.2010 had allowed the claim of the assessee in entirety. Similarly, in ITA No.754/Chd/2011 relating to assessment year 2008-09 in the appeal filed by the Revenue, vide order dated 30.11.2011, the Tribunal had allowed the claim of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The issue raised in the present appeal is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal in assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09 and following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1051 - ITAT CHENNAI
Whether the Land sold is agricultural Land or not - whole locality was classified as Residential Area by the state government - Held that:- Tamilnadu Government itself has notified the area in which the land is situated as a residential area, the certificate issued by the VAO cannot supersede the classification given by the Tamilnadu Government - no record were found that suggest assessee had carried on any agricultural operations on the Land - Decided in favour of Revenue
-
2012 (10) TMI 1050 - ITAT DELHI
Unexplained purchases u/s 69C, disallowance on expenditure - Held that:- the expenditure was accounted in the regular books, the source is obviously explained - Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Radhika Creation (supra) held that the focus of section 69C is on the "source" of such expenditure and not on the authenticity of the expenditure itself - the purchases and sales are accounted for in the books of accounts. Thus, source of the expenditure incurred in purchases is obviously explained - Decided in the favor of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1049 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of bad debts on running and terminated chits - disallowance made by the AO towards commission on cancellation chits - disallowance of royalty payment
-
2012 (10) TMI 1048 - ITAT- MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 10A admissibility - Held that:- AO has not at all examined as to how the assessee has computed the claim u/s.10A in relation to normal provisions of the Act and also while computing the book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. AO, it appears, has mechanically accepted the claim of the assessee. There is no material before us that AO has scrutinized the claim of the assessee which he was required to scrutinize in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AO is not expected to act mechanically or put blinkers on his eyes. The Apex Court has held in the case of Malbar Industrial Co. (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court) and the other authorities referred to above that an order passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
In the case before us, AO has not even discussed whatsoever briefly about the claim of deduction of the assessee It cannot, therefore, be said that the order passed by him is a reasoned order conforming to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it cannot be said that the AO has allowed the claim of deduction u/s.10A after application of mind as the application of mind is best reflected in the finding recorded in the assessment order. - Decided against assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1047 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Depreciation rate on motor cars @20% or 50% - business of running them on hire - depreciation on intangible assets viz. Business Equity - Held that:- First question is answered in favour of the assessee being assessee's own case Income-tax [2012 (8) TMI 773 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Regarding depreciation on Business equity, even the intangible assets constitute goodwill on which depreciation would be allowable - Decision in the case of CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] followed - Against the revenue
-
2012 (10) TMI 1046 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Estimation of income from contract receipts at 12.5% - Contracts include sub-contracts - income from sub-contracts to be estimated at 8% - interest receipt on bank deposit - Sale of leftover materials - whether sale of scrap or not - Held that:- There was no evidence regarding taking up of subcontract from any other concern - AO is justified in determining the net profit at 12.5%
Interest earned on margin money was inextricably connected with the contract of guarantee itself.
The entire receipts have to be considered as income as this expenditure has already gone into the Profit and Loss A/c
Now the assessee counsel is trying to find a hole in the findings of the Tribunal which is not possible in proceedings u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the plea of the assessee is dismissed. - the contention of the assessee dismissed - Decided against the assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1045 - ITAT BANGLORE
Addition u/s 69 - Held that:- There is no material to show that the assessee made investments, in such circumstances the question of offering a satisfactory explanation by the assessee does not arise for consideration. The revenue authorities have proceeded on a wrong premise in making the impugned addition. We therefore direct the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
............
|
