|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1204
... ...
... ... ..... egarding jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Jhansi before the first appellate authority and also before the Tribunal, which had been rejected on wholly untenable grounds. 5. The submission is wholly misconceived. From a reading of the Assessment Order we find that no such objection regarding jurisdiction was raised before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jhansi who was the Assessing Officer and and the assessee proceeded to challenge the same before the first appellate authority at the first instance. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act will come into play and will bar the appellant from raising the question of jurisdiction before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal if such an objection had not been raised before the assessing authority at the very first stage. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order of Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1201
... ...
... ... ..... AO's finding that the operation of Ankledshwar Plant was closed down and therefore depreciation was not allowable on the same? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in directing the A.O. that the rental income from sub leasing of property to be considered as income from House Property instead of income from business as treated by the A.O.? 2) Counsel for the revenue states that the questions (a) and (c) are covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court dated 18/6/2010 in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.128 of 2009. Hence, questions (a) and (c) cannot be entertained. 3) As regards question (b) is concerned, the revenue states that the similar question raised by the revenue in Income Tax Appeal No.598 of 2009 in CIT Vs. G. R. Shipping Limited has been dismissed on 28/7/2012. Hence, question (b) cannot be entertained. 4) For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1200
Rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) - Assessee-company has opined that certain mistakes were apparent from record in the assessment order and such mistakes should be accordingly rectified.
(i) Development Expenses - Assessee- company's portion of the expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure by AO in previous year. It is requesting for allowing the similar deduction this year also - HELD THAT:- Details of total expenditure incurred towards new product development were mentioned in assessee's books but it has not filed any details of revenue expenditure, hence same could not be allowed. Thus, AO is directed to verify the claim made by the assessee in this regard and if any portion of the expenditure is found to be revenue-nature, same may be allowed.
ii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - (i) Assessee submitted that amount involved was ₹ 9.42 crores not ₹ 9.42 lakhs as mentioned in the order - HELD THAT:- Submission made by the AR is factually correct. It is directed that operative part should be read as ₹ 9.42 Crores. - Decision in favour of Assessee.
(ii) Order of the CIT(A) Nasik was not considered while deciding the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) . During the assessment proceedings AO found that in the case of Nasik Unit there was a default with regard to provisions of TDS. He observed that TDS AO had passed an order u/s 194C r.w.s.20(1) and 201(1)A. It was further mentioned that the CIT(A) had confirmed the order of the TDS AO. The assessee approached the Tribunal. The ITAT in its order remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- Claim made by the assessee is factually correct- CIT(A) Nasik had vide its order had accepted the claim of the assessee-company. Thus, such claim should be considered.
Decision in favour of Assessee.
iii) TDS on Service Coupon Commission - As per the assessee that issue with regard to section 194 C of the Act was not adjudicated upon and matter was remitted back to AO - HELD THAT:- As far as s. 194C is concerned, full facts about the service coupon commission were not available on the file and hence matter should be restored back to the file of the AO. Decision given with regard to dealers Incentive Scheme (194H) cannot be imported for deciding the issue of service coupon commission (194C). Both do not operate in the same fields. There is no mistake apparent from record with regard to remitting back the matter to the file of the AO. Submissions made by the assessee-company about service coupons stand rejected.
Matter restored back.
iv) Acceptance of New Claim not made before AO - Assessee forget to claim deduction u/s 35 and such claim was not made before AO - HELD THAT:- AO directed to allow the claim made for deduction u/s. 35 of the Act after verification of the evidences produced by the assessee-company. Assessee is directed to file the details of expenditure before the AO.
Decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL-I VERSUS M/S. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD. [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], relied upon where it was held that the "Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such additional claims to be raised. It cannot, however, be said that they have no jurisdiction to consider the same. They have the jurisdiction to entertain the new claim. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction”.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1199
... ...
... ... ..... pportunity should be granted to the assessee to produce all the documents required to be submitted to prove the genuineness of opening capital balance and other small addition of ₹ 1121/-. Therefore, we set aside the assessment order as well as the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment to the file of AO with a direction to frame denovo assessment as per law after giving the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing. We direct accordingly. As we are restoring this assessment to the file of AO we do not express any opinion on the merits of the additions which have been challenged in the present appeal as the same will be readjudicated by AO in pursuance of our aforementioned directions. For statistical purposes the appeal filed by the assessee is considered to be allowed in the manner aforesaid. 7. In the result, the appeal is considered as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th day of Oct., 2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1197
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessment order is silent about the impugned addition held that since the interest payment is more than the interest received, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 15,61,615/-. 18. At the time of hearing the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. 19. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 20. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue against the finding of the ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that since the payment of interest is more than the interest received, the A.O. was not justified in making the addition of ₹ 15,61,615/- and, hence, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the same. The ground taken by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 21. In the result, assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19-10-2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1196
... ...
... ... ..... gly.” 5. As far as carry forward of deficit is concerned, assessee is entitled to carry forward the same, as per the orders of jurisdictional High Court in light of the decision of the Institution of Banking Personnel (supra). But, from the details filed by the assessee-trust, it is found that there appears to be calculation error. AR also admitted that out of ₹ 2.78 Crores deficit, the assessee-trust was entitled to carry forward deficit of ₹ 1.23 Crores only. We have gone through the Income and Expenditure A/c as well as the computation of deficit filed by the assessee. In our opinion, in the interest of justice, matter should be restored to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of determining the correct amount of carry-forward of deficit. Assessee-trust is directed to furnish the required details in this regard to the AO. Appeal filed by the AO stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1194
... ...
... ... ..... lower authorities are set aside and the issue or claim of bad debt to the extent of ₹ 69,08,033 is remanded back to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall re-examine the same afresh after deciding the issue of exemption u/s 10B of the Act and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer. 18. The taxpayer has also raised ground with regard to levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The only contention of the taxpayer is that interest u/s 234B is to be worked out correctly. We heard the ld.DR also. There cannot be any dispute that the interest u/s 234B has to be computed correctly. While giving effect to the order of this Tribunal, the assessing officer shall compute the interest u/s 234B in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and that of the taxpayer is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1193
... ...
... ... ..... thereof in the addition may by the AO is, therefore, confirmed. Similar is the position w.r.t. to other amounts, inter-alia , the peak of the cash deposited in the bank. As discussed above that the appellant has not been able to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank and ultimately surrendered the peak thereof, and hence addition thereof is hereby confirmed.” 14 Above clearly shows that the assessee has not been able to discharge his burden and addition has been rightly made. In any case it has to be noted that the assessee had agreed for the above addition before the J.C.I.T. by surrendering the same and the directions u/s 144A are binding on the AO. It is settled position of law that if an amount is surrendered the assessee cannot be normally said to be aggrieved person. In these circumstances we do not find any thing wrong in the order of ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 15 In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 31.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1191
... ...
... ... ..... the other hand, we agree with the learned CIT (A) that the margin of profit earned by AEs themselves is also reasonable and therefore, it could not be said that there is shift of profits by assessee to its AEs at overseas. Considering the facts of the case and also the order of TPO that RPM method has been accepted in the preceding as well as succeeding assessment years to the assessment year under consideration in respect of distribution segment activity of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity with the order of Id CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,90,07,OOO made by the AO. Ground No.2 is accordingly rejected by upholding the order of Id CIT(A)”. Respectfully following the same, since the facts are similar to the earlier years, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A). Accordingly the Revenue ground is dismissed. 10. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1190
... ...
... ... ..... appeal of the Revenue. 11. The second ground of appeal in ITA No.1040/Mds/2011 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06 is regarding amount advanced to the Director of the company to be treated as deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. A perusal of the documents on record show that Shri N.Amrutesh Reddy one of the Directors of the assessee company had advanced huge funds to the assessee without charging interest thereon. The assessee has been utilizing the amount advanced by the Director from time to time. The CIT(A) has given categoric finding on this issue. The learned DR has not been able to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, we confirm the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal. 12. Accordingly, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merit. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday , the 31st day of October, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1188
... ...
... ... ..... its an applicant has to pay admission fee also to become a member and at the time of surrender of membership only refundable security deposits are refunded that too after a particular period which at present as per NCDX website is 3 years. It follows from the above that admission fee is not refundable and this fact is particularly mentioned on the website of MCX. Therefore, following the judicial rulings relied upon by the assessee and on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the amount paid by the assessee as admission fee to various exchanges and cost of application form was a revenue expenditure. 11. In view of the above, ground No.1 of the appeal is decided in favour of the assessee. 12. Ground No.2,3 & 4 in view of above has become infructuous and therefore do not need any adjudication. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1187
... ...
... ... ..... ollow-up with the Income Tax Department, the Company could obtain such copy of the grounds of appeal on 08.12.2009 and thereupon, the appeal came to be filed before the Tribunal. 5. We are conscious that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Courts have been viewing delay, particularly when the same is well explained, rather liberally. When the cause of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts are largely reluctant to terminate legal proceedings on technical grounds. In the present case, there was sufficient explanation rendered by the assessee for preferring the appeal before the Tribunal after some delay. In our view, such delay ought to have been condoned. 6. In the facts of the present case, therefore, we are inclined to reverse the impugned order of the Tribunal. The question is answered in favour of the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal would now hear the assessee's appeal on merits.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1185
... ...
... ... ..... the claim of assessee to get benefit of deduction u/s 80IB of I.T. Act 1961 at 30% of the total income derived from industrial undertaking of manufacture of surgical kits. It is not disputed that assessee is having manufacturing facilities at Amravati and sale shown at Amravati as well as Thapoda are only in respect to goods manufactured at Amravati Unit. The entire sales are in respect to manufactured goods. On above undisputed factual position the conclusion drawn by CIT(A)-II can not be faulted. The decision of CIT(A)-II is on fair and reasonable reasoning as indicated in appellate order. We have perused the various reasonings and findings as recorded in order of CIT(A) and agree with the same. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We find no merit in appeal of revenue and same is dismissed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 19.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1184
Excise duty paid need not be included in the valuation of the closing stock and non-inclusion would be a revenue neutral and would have no impact upon the tax payable - Held that:- In case of an assessee, where common order is passed in respect of more than one assessment year, which involves common issues even if in one of the assessment years the tax effect is more than ₹ 10 lakhs, irrespective of the fact that in respect of other assessment years which is part of the common order, the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, the revenue is entitled to file appeal even in respect such assessment years where the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. However, in case where there is no common order and an order is passed only in respect of an assessment, year and the tax effect therein is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, the revenue cannot file the appeal.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1183
... ...
... ... ..... t as it is not required to fulfil the conditions mentioned under Section 11 of the Act while claiming exemption under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. Further in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, there is no whisper that the assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions of the Section 11 of the Act for claiming it to be a charitable institution. He had solely relied on the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act while denying the exemption under the aforesaid sub-section. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly restored the registration on the ground that in the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 benefit of exemption/deduction under Section 11 of the Act was allowed to the respondent-assessee. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Allahabad. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1182
... ...
... ... ..... e Act as it is not required to fulfil the conditions mentioned under Section 11 of the Act while claiming exemption under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. Further in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, there is no whisper that the assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions of the Section 11 of the Act for claiming it to be a charitable institution. He had solely relied on the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act while denying the exemption under the aforesaid sub-section. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly restored the registration on the ground that in the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 benefit of exemption/deduction under Section 11 of the Act was allowed to the respondent-assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Allahabad. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1181
... ...
... ... ..... d to a group concern, the loss on account of escalation of costs could not be declined. In principle thus, there is nothing wrong in the claim of loss on a tour organized for a group concern. It cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to proceed on the basis that the assessee must make reasonable profits on transactions with the associated entities, and thus apply the arms’ length principles in all transactions within the group concerns, even when statue does not provide for the same. We are unable to approve this approach. There is no other reason given by the authorities below in support of the impugned disallowance. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this disallowance of ₹ 8,40,261 must be deleted. We do so. 10. Ground Nos. 5 and 6, which deal with the disallowance of ₹ 8,40,261, are therefore allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 23rd day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1180
... ...
... ... ..... has summarily rejected the claim of the appellant. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the AO’s action in summarily rejecting the renovation expenses cannot be justified. Accordingly, the addition made by him to this extent (Rs. 4,05,975/-) is deleted.” 8. From the above, it is evident that the assessee furnished the proper bill from the contractor through whom the renovation work was executed. It appears that assessee had also taken the GPF Advance from his employer for the purpose of renovation and repairs. It is not the case of the AO that contractor has not done any renovation and repair work for the assessee and has not disclosed the receipts received by the Contractor. In our opinion, the relief given by the CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1179
... ...
... ... ..... ation income or loss from such transactions is to be considered as capital gain or capital loss. No contrary precedent has been brought to our notice by the learned D.R. Respectfully following the above orders, we uphold the impugned order by holding that income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain and resultantly there can be no charge to tax under the DTAA. 7. Ground No. 4, against the charging of interest under section 234B, has in our considered opinion, become consequential in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Facts and circumstances for the A.Y. 2006-07 are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the A.Y. 2005-06. In fact, no separate submission has been advanced by the either side in relation to this later year. Following our view taken hereinabove, we uphold the impugned order to this extent for this year as well. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1178
... ...
... ... ..... on of the submissions made at the bar, we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal Infrastructure Development's case bench consisting of three judges the said decision suggests a liberal approach for condonation of delay where public interest is involved. In that view of the matter and in the context of the averments made in paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. On the submissions of both the counsel, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. In view of the decision of this Court in ITA NO.417/2008 between the same parties, the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh assessment giving liberty to both the parties to establish their case as to whether the activities of the assessee amounts to a charitable activity and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 with reference to the facts and material adduced by the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
........
|
