|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1177
... ...
... ... ..... ories and not as per the services rendered by M/s EI Tabaldi Co Ltd. 6.2 It is evident from the details of payment as well as from the contents of the terms and conditions of the agreement that the payment was made on the basis of the sales turnover effected in these foreign countries namely Sudan and Tehad and the payment is not de-horse the percentage of turnover for any services rendered by M/s EI Tabaldi Co Ltd . Therefore, it cannot be said that the payment was made for any managerial or for technical services rendered by M/s EI Tabaldi Co Ltd. 7 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the said payment was in the nature of commission to the selling agent and therefore, not liable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient and accordingly, no tax is required to be deducted at source. Hence, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is deleted. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th,day of Oct 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1176
Disallowance made under the head “Provisions on Standard Assets” - Held that:- Provision for contingent or unaccured liability is not allowable as deduction - We direct the Assessing Officer to delete such disallowance and allow the claim of the assessee in this regard.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1174
... ...
... ... ..... eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in ignoring the underlying principle that the eligible business/unit of the assessee should not be denied of rightful claim of deduction by reducing the said profits by unduly setting off either against the losses of the other units of the assessee or against the unabsorbed depreciation as in the instant case. In fact, the said decision of the Tribunal was available at the relevant point of time ie on 27th Jan 2011 the date of the order of the CIT(A) and however, the assessee did not cite the same. Therefore, in our opinion, the issue raised before us is required to be adjudicated by the CIT (A) considering the above decision in the case of Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT. Ground no.2 is decided accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1173
... ...
... ... ..... y of the activity carried on by the assessees in a systematic manner, it would partake the character of business activities carried on by the assessee in shares, and it cannot be said that the assessees have merely made investments in shares. In our opinion the findings of the CIT(A) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as he has not considered relevant facts to decide the issue. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed.” 9. Since the issue under consideration is materially identical to the one decided by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Jain & Rupendar Kumar Jain (supra), respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the said case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO. 10. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1172
Disallowance the depreciation on motor car registered in the name of the director - Held that:- The assessee is entitled to depreciation on the cars as though they are named in the name of director were to be used for the business of the assessee and not for personal use. Accordingly, we, while deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. and enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard, allow the claim of the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1171
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- It is not the case of change of opinion which has resulted in initiation of proceedings under section 147 and 148. Therefore, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1162
... ...
... ... ..... second situation, incurring of expenditure is never in dispute. The only dispute is how to treat that expenditure-revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. In our opinion in such a cases, penalty cannot be imposed u/s. 271(1)( c ) of the Act, as stated earlier. In the recent case, delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd (322 ITR 158),the issue of claims made by the assessee with regard to imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) has been dealt in length. As, in case under consideration, details of expenditure incurred were furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, so, penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the FAA needs to be deleted. It is neither a case of filing of inaccurate particulars nor of concealing the particulars. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are decided in favour of the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1161
... ...
... ... ..... dition is required. The Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra before the Tribunal, which appeal was dismissed. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra , learned Senior Standing Counsel. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT 2010 328 ITR 513 has held that unless the books of account of Assessee are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot refer the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer. In the present case we find that the books of account of the respondent-assessee has not been rejected and only certain expenditure has been disallowed and enhancement has been made in the cost of construction of the building on the basis of the Valuation Officer report. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion, that addition made on account of the report of the Valuation Officer was not at all warranted. The order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1160
Capital Gain under Section 45 - Consideration received under the family settlement on transfer of right, title and interest in the family property - transfer under Section 2(47) - Held that:- ITAT following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maturi Pullaiah and Anr. v. Maturi Narasinham and ors. [1966 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT] held that there is no transfer of assets in the family arrangement and the amount received by the assessee is part of the family arrangement and not towards the transfer of any capital assets and hence no Capital Gains Tax liability arises. In our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of facts, hence no question of law arises.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1152
Addition u/s.40A(2)(b) - commission paid to agents - AO was not convinced and held that the commission was paid to the beneficiaries of the Trust, hence payment made to persons specified u/s.40A(2)(b) was disallowed - Held that:- Trust has availed the services of these persons, therefore the commission was legitimately paid on the business brought by them. Resultantly ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1150
... ...
... ... ..... ctricity board and not the one which is fixed by the legislative mandate. In the instant case the assessee is prevented by the legislative mandate from selling power to any person other than GEB. On the other hand, the GEB sold power to the assessee ₹ 4.86 per unit. Since the facts of the instant case are squarely covered by the decisions of die ITAT as above, it is clear the AO was not justified in denying the claim u/s 80IA. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s 8OIA as claimed, based on market rate of Rs, 4.86 per unit of power.” 8. We do not find any infirmity into the order of Ld. CIT(A) as he has considered all aspects of the matter and has rightly followed the decisions of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi rendered in the cases of Addl.CIT vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd 16 SOT 509. In this view of the matter this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1148
... ...
... ... ..... e size of the business and past history of the case, the disallowance retained by the ld. CIT(A) appears to be excessive and therefore, it will be in the interest of justice if an addition of ₹ 4 lacs is sustained.. The AO is directed accordingly. 6.3. As regards the misc. expenses, the assessee made payments through account payee cheques of ₹ 1 lac, ₹ 2 lac & ₹ 2.60 lacs and therefore, the AO could verify the payments from the bank, which has not been done in the present case. There is nothing on record with regards to the misc. expenses claimed for ₹ 40,000/- and ₹ 50,436/- and therefore, the said ₹ 90,436/- in total is required to be sustained and the AO is directed to sustain the same. The AO is directed accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.127(Asr)/2012 is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.102(Asr)/2012 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1146
... ...
... ... ..... evidence on record in true perspective. He submitted that there was no occasion for the assessee to produce the books of account and other documents till hearing of the assessment proceedings. His failure to do so earlier therefore, cannot be a factor against him. Counsel further submitted that the stock was properly explained. 4. We are however, of the opinion that on the basis of evidence on record, two authorities concurrently held that the assessee was unable to explain the unaccounted stock at the time of survey. Such concurrent findings were confirmed by the Tribunal. No question of law arises. To reiterate, we notice that during the survey the assessee when confronted with the excess stock admitted that same is unaccounted. He agreed to disclose the same as unaccounted stock. There was other evidence and material showing that stock was not accounted. 5. In totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1145
Reopening of assessment - notice issues after four years - Held that:- AO, in the reasons recorded, after relying on the Tribunal’s decision in the assessee’s own case for a different assessment year, has merely made a bald statement that the assessee had failed “to disclose truly and fully all legal facts”. It is borne out from the record that the assessee had provided in its P&L A/c software expenses as revenue in nature.
AO in the original assessment had, without any discussion in the assessment order, allowed these software expenses as revenue expenditure, and this was sought to be disturbed in the reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years. This is a clear case where the primary facts were available before the AO, and therefore, the assessee cannot be held to have failed to disclose “fully and truly all material facts”. It was for the AO to draw the appropriate inference. The assessee is/was under no obligation to draw the inference of fact or law based on the primary facts available on record. - Decided against revenue
-
2012 (10) TMI 1144
Disallowance u/s. 14 r.w. Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this ground is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Godrej & Boycee Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs DCIT[2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, we restore this issue back to the files of AO to decide afresh without applying Rule 8D as Rule 8D has been held to be applicable from A.Y. 2008-09. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Rental Income - Income from house property instead of business income - In the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT [2003 (1) TMI 99 - SC ORDER], held that income derived from letting out of the property should be assessed as income from house property. The Ld. Counsel’s contention that in the earlier year, the rental income has been taxed under the head ‘Income from House property’ and therefore the same should be followed as per the rule of consistency cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the rule of consistency envisages that if there is only one view on the given set of facts, then the same view should be taken year after year.
However, In the instant case, in the earlier year, the Revenue authorities may have taken a wrong view in-consistent with the ratio laid down in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT, in our considerate view, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to be followed.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the assessee, findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are confirmed. This ground of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1143
... ...
... ... ..... se favour the assessee had issued Power of Attorney, who had himself sought adjournment for appearance on the next date of hearing. However, on the said date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the said counsel and application for adjournment was moved by the counsel, not holding any letter of authority. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the present application moved under section 254(2) of the Act, where the powers conferred by the Tribunal are limited and the issues which have been adjudicated on merits are not open to be re-heard or re-adjudicate, as the power of review is not available under section 254 (2) of the Act. We find support from the ratio laid down in the case of H.K.Thakore Vs. ITO (supra). We dismiss the present Miscellaneous Application being not maintainable. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1142
... ...
... ... ..... e issue involved in this appeal now stands squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2010) 234 CTR (Bom) 1, wherein it has been held that Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962 is applicable only from assessment year 2007-08. As further held by Hon’ble High Court, the disallowance u/s 14A for the years prior to assessment year 2007-08 has to be made by adopting some reasonable method. Respectfully following 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 matter to the file of the AO with a direction to recompute the disallowance of expenses to be made u/s 14A by applying some reasonable method after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 12th day of Oct., 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1141
Entitled for exemption either under S.10(23C) or under S.11 - Held that:- The enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer with handful of persons does not appear to have brought out the reality of the situation as to the collection of capitation fee by the assessee - we are of the opinion that adequate enquiry should have been conducted by the lower authorities before coming to the conclusion that the assessee has charged capitation fee. Consequently the assessee deserves another opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer that it has not charged any capitation fee from the students. Remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh and determine as to whether the assessee has collected capitation fee from the students, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Apex Court and others in the judicial pronouncements discussed above
-
2012 (10) TMI 1140
... ...
... ... ..... equent to the purchase of flats in question. The lower authorities were not having benefit of decision in the case of G.V.Corporation (supra) on the issue as well as the decision in the case of Kruti Constructions (supra). So in the interest of justice we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law available at the relevant point of time after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Similar issue arose in ITA.No.1382/PN/2010. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law available at the relevant point of time after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. As a result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... “1. Looking to the nature of business of the assessee as Road contractor, the Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have allowed the expenditure of Labour Wages of ₹ 1655246/-, instead party allowed ₹ 1241434/-.” 14. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application is made on behalf of assessee. However, the notice of hearing is duly served as acknowledgement due is on record. We feel that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this CO and respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench Delhi rendered in the case of Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320). Hence, this CO of assessee is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. 15. In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed for want of prosecution. 16. In combined result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s CO is dismissed for want of prosecution. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
........
|
