|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1230
... ...
... ... ..... 80 ITD 25 wherein netting of interest for the purposes of explanation (baa) has been upheld. We direct the Assessing Officer to follow the said decision." 7. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was filed by the revenue for modification of order dated 29-7-2005, Annexure A.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 20-12-2007, Annexure A.4, affirming the said order. The effect of the same would be that it is the net interest which has to be taken into consideration while computing deduction under Section 80HHC as per Clause (baa) of the explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal being in conformity with the order of the Apex Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), it is held that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1229
... ...
... ... ..... hares on April 10, 2008, when Solrex was still in the process of investing more money into the scrip of the target company. It is also interesting to note that the funds for investment for purchasing the scrip of the target company were made available by Mr. V. K. Kaul and the sale proceeds of the scrip were also transferred back to him. Mrs. Bala Kaul, in her reply dated January 1, 2011, has further stated that instructions to the stockbroker for the transaction were also given telephonically by Mr. V. K. Kaul. We, therefore, cannot find any fault with the findings arrived at by the adjudicating officer that Mr. V. K. Kaul had traded in the scrip of the target company in the name of his wife when he was in possession of UPSI that Solrex was to purchase large number of shares of the target company for which funds were being arranged by Ranbaxy. Therefore, we have no hesitation in upholding the impugned order. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1226
... ...
... ... ..... mistake in such assessment. In any case as noted by the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A)’s reversals were made in accounts based on a one time settlement with M/s.IDBI and it required a detailed analysis to find the exact amount of interest and loans, which were waived or the exact amount of repayment of loan or interest, made pursuant to such settlement. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kesari Metal Pvt Ltd. ITA Nos.. 199 & 200 /Mds/12 7 237 ITR 165 a look at the record must show that there is an error, which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Resort to documents outside the records is impermissible in the rectification proceedings. We are therefore, of the opinion that CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeals of the assessee. No interference is required. 7. In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on Thursday, the 11th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1225
... ...
... ... ..... l for the revenue, this observation is only obiter dicta and is not the ratio of the decision and the question whether an activity amounts to manufacture or not is to be decided in the facts of each case. 13. As far as conversion of limestone into limestone powder is concerned, The Apex Court has clearly held that the conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers can legitimately be considered to be a manufacturing process while the mere mining of limestone and marble and cutting the same would not be so considered. The observation of the Supreme Court cannot be termed to be 'obiter dicta' since the Supreme Court has held that the process of conversion of limestone into lime and lime dust is a manufacturing process. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue. Accordingly, all the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 14. These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1224
... ...
... ... ..... company would not fall within the provision of section 194C and hence no tax was required to be deducted. The hiring of ships for the purpose of using them in the assessee’s business did not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in section 194C.” 8. On perusing the order of the learned AO and the learned CIT(A), we are of the view that the revenue had not made a detailed enquiry on the submission of the assessee recorded herein above and made any findings thereon. Further, the decisions of the case relied upon by the assessee cited supra were also not before the revenue for consideration. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the orders of the revenue and remit the matter back to the file of the learned AO for de novo consideration and for considering all the aspects mentioned herein above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 -10-2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... nts made by the assessee before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter requires thorough investigation at the level of the A.O. and with liberty to the assessee to establish that the assessee is not a dealer/trader in shares and is an investor. The assessee has also to establish that he is doing day to day trading in shares and was involved in F & O segment and is not taking delivery of shares in dispute and is not required to get his accounts audited as required under section 44AB of the Act. With these directions, the matter is set aside to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand this issue with regard to determination of interest income that is to be treated as having accrued to the assessee under mercantile system of accounting, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and also exclude the interest income accounted for in the books, which does not pertain to the previous year, but pertains to the period earlier to the previous year but accounted for during the previous year on receipt basis. The assessee will let in necessary evidence to establish its case and the AO will consider the same and decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to put forth all contentions regarding the quantum of interest income that is to be brought to tax. 11. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1220
... ...
... ... ..... ot capital expenses ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is right in holding that while computing income under Section 115JA, deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed on the basis of book profits and not on the basis of profits under normal provisions ? 2. As regards questions (a), (b) and (E) are concerned, counsel for the Revenue fairly states that similar questions raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.6195 of 2010 have not been entertained by this Court. Hence, questions (a), (b) and (e) cannot be entertained. 3. Counsel for the Revenue further states that questions (c) and (f) are covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Bhari Information Technology Systems (P) Limited reported in (2012) 340 ITR 593 (S.C.). Accordingly, questions (c) and (f) cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is admitted on question (d).
-
2012 (10) TMI 1219
... ...
... ... ..... t of question (d), the Tribunal following its decision in the case of assessee for assessment years 19891990 and 19901991 has allowed the claim of the assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal for earlier years. Moreover, no case is made out to find fault with the decision of the Tribunal in this year and the earlier years. Hence, we see no reason to entertain question (d). 4. The appeal is admitted on questions (b) and (e), which reads thus (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,12,762/claimed by the assessee company as temple expenses ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 40,07,238/claimed by the assessee company as community welfare expenses ?
-
2012 (10) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 43,39,215/claimed by the assessee company as community expenses ? 2. As regards question (a) is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary materials for the purpose of assessment and, hence, reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is bad in law. Since the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain question (a). 3. As regards question (c), (d) and (e) are concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.6186 of 2010 have not been entertained. For the reasons stated therein, questions (c), (d) and (e) cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is admitted on questions (b) and (f).
-
2012 (10) TMI 1216
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Meaning and scope of the term "Housing Project" - The assessee company purchased three residential flats and converted them into commercial establishments. AO viewed that the provisions u/s 80IB(10) not having been satisfied on the ground that housing projects don't include commercial buildings, assessee not entitled to the deduction. It was contended that Housing project would include commercial buildings also as per the s. 80HHBA. - HELD THAT:- In the absence of definition of the expression 'housing project' anywhere else in the Act and the said expression being defined in a related deduction provision under the same Chapter VIA, we feel, it would be more appropriate to go by the definition of the expression 'housing project', as available under Section 80HHBA for the purpose of understanding the said expression of 'housing project' under Section 80IB of the Act.
Project is not, pure and simple, a residential one. After reading s. 80HHBA and 80IA, it is clear that s. 80IB is concerned about housing project namely, construction of any building other than what is contemplated as an infrastructure facility u/s 80IA. In s. 80HHBA, the expression "housing project" is defined in a wider sense but there is no such decision that allow the interpretation of housing project in wider sense u/s 80IB(10) thereby restricting the scope of Housing project.
Decision in the case of CCE VERSUS M/S HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL [2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] was relied upon.
Revenue appeal dismissed.
Seeking fresh claim / relief in the Revenue Appeal whereas no appeal was filed by the assessee against the decision of ITAT - Issue of chargeability of tax versus issue of grant of relief / deduction - HELD THAT:- The reliance of assessee in the case of Essar Shipping Ltd.'s case [2013 (12) TMI 443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is not valid. - The situation herein is a totally different one. The question is one of deduction and not of chargeability under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, we reject the assessee's case in this regard.
The decision in the case of Essar Shipping Ltd.'s case [2013 (12) TMI 443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] distinguished.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1215
... ...
... ... ..... he decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) the issue may be set aside to the file of the A.O. Since we have set aside the issue of disallowance u/s 14A to the file of the A.O., we are of the view that in the interest of justice this issue may also be set aside to the file of the A.O. and accordingly we set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of the direction given in para 8 of this order and according to law including the decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and also the decision in the case of Sonata Information Technology Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2012) 19 ITR (Trib) 408 (Mumbai) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the Revenue and assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 27. In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 31-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... basis of the fact which were produced at the time of assessment, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of assessee that income in question is derived by firm from agricultural operations carried on the land belonging to MSFC Ltd., Pune, as agricultural income. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer is based on improper interpretation of law and on surmises and conjectures. In view of the above, the CIT(A) was justified that amount of ₹ 32,69,820/-and ₹ 35,13,376/- for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively are agricultural income of assessee firm. This reasoned factual finding need no interference from our side. As a result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 22. The Cross Objections filed were in support of the order of the CIT(A) goes academic. In view of the foregoing conclusion wherein the order of the CIT(A) has been upheld. 23. As a result, both the appeals of Revenue as well as the cross objections are dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1213
... ...
... ... ..... s stage. Since the matter had been remanded, the Income-tax Officer should make the assessment. If the assessee felt aggrieved with the assessment, he could adopt the remedies provided by law wherein he could raise the present questions as well. Therefore, it was not necessary to examine the question of the power of the Tribunal in this matter” 19. In our considerate view, the additions made by the AO were not made in the original assessment and by making such addition the AO has travelled beyond the directions of the CIT(A), in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. The additional grounds raised by the assessee deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, we quash the order of the AO and reverse the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). As we have decided the appeal on the point of law by quashing the assessment order, we do not propose to decide the issue on merit. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... ddition made of ₹ 1,28,80,366/- on account of bogus purchase from R.R.Patel Trading Corporation, stating that the issue is covered under the proviso of Section 40A(3) ignoring the provisos of sec.69 C as amended w.e.f. 1.4.1999.” 17. Both the parties before us submitted that the issue in this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is covered with the issue in the grounds of the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2005-2006. 18. We have considered rival submissions. In view of our decision, while disposing of the assessee’s appeal for the earlier assessment year 2005-2006 in the foregoing paras of this order, we hold that there is no merit in the ground no.1 of the Revenue’s appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 19. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A.Y.2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are partly allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue for A.Y.2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1210
... ...
... ... ..... /2009 20. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal, as already noted above, relates to the relief granted by the CIT(A) in the matter of the addition made by the assessing officer on account of valuation of closing stock. In view of our decision on this very issue while dealing with the grounds of the assessee in relation to this very issue, whereby we have set aside the issue to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal need no separate adjudication, and they are also treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 21. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. To sum up, while the assessee’s appeal, ITA No529/Hyd/2009, is partly allowed for statistical purposes, Revenue’s appeal, ITA No.595/Hyd/2009, is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 19.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1209
... ...
... ... ..... n of disallowable sum is determined. We have also find that the decisions of Cheminvest India Ltd (supra) Shree Shyamkamal Finance and Leasing Co. Private Limited (ITA No.433/M/2010) are different on facts. It is the grievance of the assessee that the provisions of section 14A as they stand at the relevant point of time as applicable to AY 07-08 are not properly appreciated by the Revenue. It is the prayer of the parties that all the grounds raised by them may be set aside to the files of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. We find merit in the arguments of the parties and order accordingly. In the set aside proceedings, AO shall consider all the objections raised by the Ld Counsel before us and meet out the objections by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, all the three appeals/CO are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1208
... ...
... ... ..... ssue to the file of A.O. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of Development charges, legal charges, society formation charges, water, electricity & meter charges. As regards the deduction u/s 80IB(10) on corpus fund charges, in the absence of any relevant material available on record, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) set aside the issue to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of the direction given by the Tribunal in the said case (supra) and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly the ground taken by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 19-10-2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1207
... ...
... ... ..... he documents seized were not found satisfactory. That presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act would apply. 6. We are of the opinion that the entire issue is based on appreciation of the material on record. Section 132(4A) of the Act uses the words “may presume”, meaning thereby that such presumption is rebuttable. In the present case, documents found pertain to entries related to oil business. The assessee's business at least accounted was of transportation. Revenue could not bring on record any material to suggest that the assessee was also involved in the business of dealing in oil. Additionally, the Tribunal has correctly recorded that the documents were dump documents. Revenue did not make any attempt to inquire into the matter further from the persons whose names were reflected in such entries. 7. In short, it cannot be stated that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. No error is committed by the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1205
... ...
... ... ..... been found as un-explained under Section 68 of the Act. 5. The submission is wholly mis-conceived. In the search operation carried on M/s Ganga Ram Agarwal and Companies, there is no admission by the assessee therein that they were involved giving bogus/accommodation entries. Even if, findings recorded by the Assessing Authority to that effect is not correct and can not be relied upon. From the facts found by the authorities, it is clear that the amount of loan was advanced through the Account Payee Cheques and PANs were also furnished. The amount has been repaid through account payee cheques and the lenders has sufficient funds in their bank accounts not by cash deposited on the preceding date or when the cheques were issued by the money lenders. 6. We, therefore, observe that Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly passed the orders. In such circumstances no addition under Section 68 of the Act was called for. Consequently, the appeal is failed. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
