|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1137
Levying a penalty u/s 271 - deduction under Section 10B - Held that:- There is no dispute that the appellant disclosed all the facts. The appellant did not conceal any facts. Based on the disclosed material, the appellant sought the deduction which was denied on the ground that it was not entitled to the same as a matter of law. The Tribunal was in error in holding that merely because the claim for deduction was denied the appellant is liable to pay a penalty.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... l has failed to follow the decision of the co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of M/s. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. o p /o p 5. It is further to be observed that the issues raised by the Commissioner in the impugned revision order have already been adjudicated by ITAT, Chennai ‘D’ Bench in its common order dated 4.10.2011 passed in ITA Nos.1206/Mds/2011 and 779/Mds/2011, as far as the assessment year 2007-08 is concerned. In that way, on merit also, the post facto situation reveals that the issues considered by the Commissioner have already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. o p /o p 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no error apparent from the record of the case as far as the order of the Tribunal is concerned, either on facts or in law. o p /o p 7. This Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly, dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on Thursday, the 11th of October, 2012 at Chennai. o p /o p
-
2012 (10) TMI 1133
Disallowance of expenses computing the income from Hawala business - Held that:- CIT(A) is not correct in stating that the A.O. had not disallowed the interest expenses. There is also no finding by the A.O. that the interest expenses were not genuine. Therefore, in our view, the order of the CIT(A) which is based on wrong facts cannot be sustained. Therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the claim of interest of ₹ 1,04,703/-.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... appellate proceedings, if the facts were available on records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra) had held that making a fresh claim before the AO, assessee has to file a revised return, but for appellate authorities there is no such bar. 8. In these circumstances, if the FAA had directed the AO to re-calculate taxable income as per the claim made by the assessee-company, in our opinion, he had taken a rational and judicious decision. It is also mention-worthy that company is a BIFR company and it is in process of revival. Not only this, it also an important factor that banks have waived loan as well as interest component due from the assessee. 9. Therefore, we are of the opinion that order of the FAA is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and needs no interference from our side. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 filed by the AO are rejected. Appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... eal before us. 10. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are inclined to confirm the stand of the CIT(A) as it is consistent with the stand being taken by Coordinate benches of this Tribunal, including in the case of ACIT Vs Hiren Jaswant Rai Shah (141 TTJ 851), wherein it is, inter alia, held that “if transactions are carried out through stock exchanges from 1.4.2005 to 25.1.2006, which are recognized by CBDT notification on 25.1.2006, would be eligible for being treated as non speculative within the meaning of clause (d) of proviso to section 43(5)”. We are in respectful agreement with the views so expressed by Co-ordinate benches. The stand of the CIT(A) thus does not call for any interference. 11. In the result, appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. To sum up, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on 19th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1130
... ...
... ... ..... 0(6) of the Act shows that the statute mandatorily required the CIT(A) while deciding the appeal to set out the issue for determination and the decision thereof along with reasons for arriving at the decision. The said exercise which is necessary is missing in the impugned order. In the light of the above peculiar facts and circumstances and position of law, we are of the view that the action of Ld CIT(A) was not in conformity with the requirement of the Income Tax Act. At the same time, the Assessing Officer has arrived at the assessment u/s 144 i.e. without listening to the assessee’s submission. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the case should be re-adjudicated by the Assessing Officer afresh. Needless to say that assessee will be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1129
... ...
... ... ..... the lender company. However, in the case before us, assessee is neither a shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder as observed by ld CIT(A) and not disputed by ld D.R. at the time of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the view taken by ld CIT(A) is directly covered by the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. as well as decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hotel Hill Top (supra). It is relevant to state that same view has been taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Universal Medicare Private Limited, 324 ITR 263(Bom) as well as by Authority of Advance Ruling in the case of Madura Coats P. Ltd., In re, 274 ITR 609. 7. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Hence, we uphold his order by rejecting ground of appeal taken by department. 8. In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1128
Disallowance of interest paid to related parties u/s 4OA(2)(b)- disallowance of foreign travel expenses - disallowance of motor car expenses to 10% - Claim of deduction u/s 80G first time before CIT(A) in appellate proceedings - Held that:- If assessee is able to establish that the recipient of interest are paying tax at the highest rate on the income then no disallowance is called for u/s 40A(2) - AO is directed to verify the rate of tax at which the recipient of interest have paid tax and if it is equivalent to the rate of tax paid by the assessee then interest is allowed
Held that:- The visits of the entire family of the partners of the assessee firm cannot be treated as business visit - expenses on family members who are not partners of the assessee firm, cannot be allowed as business expenditure - AO to disallow the actual expenditure incurred on the foreign travel with respect to the non-partner - Decided against the assessee
Held that:- Fringe benefit tax is levied on the expenses incurred by the employer irrespective of whether the same are incurred for official or personal purposes - the expense have to be appropriately allowed as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - Decided in favor of assessee
Claim of deduction u/s 80G first time before CIT(A) in appellate proceedings - Held that:- Assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80G @50% - The CIT(A) did not entertain the claim of the assessee since assessee has not claimed it before the AO in the statement of income - AO to consider and decide the claim of the assessee after verification of the relevant facts and records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1127
... ...
... ... ..... earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)." 5. Before us, learned 'counsel for the Revenue principally sought to place reliance on provisions contained in section 43B of the Act. We are however, of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) as well as Tribunal both having found that expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee, disallowance therefore, under section 43B would not be permissible. Revenue has not brought on record as to when such amount was actually paid by the assessee. Tribunal as noted above, recorded that the liability had crystallized on 1.3.2005 when the assessee had raised demand and therefore, same cannot be termed a liability which is contingent. The Tribunal also recorded that the assessee had borne such expenditure and was not reimbursed by the contractee and nor the contractee has claimed such amount by way of expenditure. In our view, conclusion of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1126
Application of provisions of section 40a(ia) - eligibility to exemption u/s 10(24) - Interest income was added under the head ‘income from other sources’ on the basis of its accrual - Held that:- As we have already held that the interest income earned by the assessee is also liable for exemption u/s 10(24) of the Act, we are not going in deep with regard to interest income earned by the assessee from Kachnar Builders which has been partly brought to tax by the CIT(A) to certain extent.
From the record we find that 15% of incentive bonus payable to workers was contributed by them to the association. This amount was deposited with the association to meet all sorts of expenditure including lawyers’ fee, TA/DA, typing, stenographic charges, court fee and all other incidental expenses. The balance out of such contribution was to be refunded to the deserving employees. From record we find that substantial amount received from the employees was refunded to them in the years 1999 and 2000 after meeting the expenditure. Thus, the amount received from the workers for meeting such expenditure was not in the nature of income in the hands of the assessee being a coordination committee but was merely in the nature of deposit which was meant for meeting expenditure for defending/prosecuting various cases of employees. There was a clear concept of mutuality. No-one can make profit out of himself. When a member agrees to contribute funds for a common purpose, the amount of funds not so required for common purpose and refunded to such individual, cannot be treated as income in their hands liable to tax. Thus, the general principle applicable to the mutual concern is that the surplus accruing to it cannot be regarded as income, profits or gains for the purpose of income tax.
As discussed hereinabove, the amount received by the assessee was not in the nature of income and the assessee was not doing any business activity and as such the application of provisions of section 40a(ia) was not justified
-
2012 (10) TMI 1125
Deduction u/s 80-IA - whether initial assessment year in section 80-IA(5) would only mean the year of commencement and not the year of claim ? - Unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- Issue notice on application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the Special Leave Petition.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1123
... ...
... ... ..... ing decisions in support of his contention that under section 16A of Wealth Tax Act if a reference is not made to the valuation officer by the AO there is no right to make reference if the assessment is completed, but the facts remains that the decision cited herein are vis-à-vis the provisions of section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act whereas the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, in para 9 above, categorically held that on a plain reading of provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act, a direction can be given by the CIT(A) to refer the matter to the valuation officer - 1. Shantilal Bhogilal Jhaveri vs. Fifth Wealth Tax Officer 1991) 187 ITR 395 (Bom). 2. M.V. Kibe vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax 1987 168 ITR 82 (MP). 13. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the case we affirm the orders passed by the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the respective assessees. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... ts and material on record found that search was conducted in mid of the financial year and that the financial statement and the tax audit report on the end of the year was not disputed by the AO. It would mean that there was no difference in quantity on the end of the financial year. The assessee accounted for sales in the books of accounts after the search and the AO did not dispute the stock, purchase and sales made by the assessee during the financial year which are shown in the audited accounts. Nothing was found on record that the assessee made unaccounted sales. In view of the facts and circumstances considered by the learned CIT(A), we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The findings of the learned CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any evidence of material on record. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1121
... ...
... ... ..... e Court in the case of Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 (SC) because there has been a delay in payment of taxes even by the deductee. The assessee has not denied the liability to pay interest on account of delayed deposits of tax by the payees. Such interest works out to ₹ 42,927/- for the assessment year 2006-07, ₹ 32,664/- for the assessment year 2007-08, ₹ 36,196 for the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore arguments made by the ld. counsel for the assessee that no penalty is imposable and mere payment of tax after the due date will not absolve the default for which the penalty is imposed. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly confirmed the action of the A.O. Thus, all the grounds in all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.262 to 264(Asr)/2012 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1120
... ...
... ... ..... iven in SEZ rules as well as the definition contained in SEZ Act, 2005 and facts being identical in the earlier years, which was accepted by the assessing officer, in order to deviate from the decision taken in the earlier years, the burden is upon the A.O. to show that the view taken by him is the only view possible in the matter and, in law assessee cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be entitled to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has given cogent reasons in arriving at a conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10AA of the Act on an interpretation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act as well as the SEZ Act and Rules, apart from the instructions issued by the Ministry of Commerce, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and thus, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly in the open Court on 30.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1119
... ...
... ... ..... presumption but a matter of fact to be established by the assessee on the basis of evidence. The mere fact that the creditors are income-tax payee does not by itself establish the availability of cash in their hands or their creditworthiness to advance any sum of money. The ld. CIT (A) further observes that the source of source need not be proved by the assessee. We are unable to accept the aforesaid reasoning also. The question here is not to prove the source of source but of satisfactorily establishing the nature and source of cash credits found recorded in the books of the assessee. In the face of materials brought on record by the AO, we are unable to concur with the observation of the CIT (A) that the assessee has proved the capacity of creditors as also the genuineness of the impugned transactions. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the CIT (A) is reversed and that of the AO is restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed. Order pronounced on 05.10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1118
Addition of amount debited on reversal of income by changing the method of accounting from accrual to cash basis and also that the amount was not written off in the books of account as irrecoverable - Held that:- Claim of reversal of income is allowed. See GE Capital Service India vs. DCIT [2012 (9) TMI 1070 - ITAT DELHI]
-
2012 (10) TMI 1116
Gain on sale of shares - capital gain or busniss income - Held that:- Commissioner as well as the Tribunal concurrently found as a matter of fact that looking to the relevant factors including the amount of shareholding of the assessee, the volume and the frequency of the purchase and sale of shares etc., it cannot be stated that the assessee was in the business of trading of shares. More significantly, we find that the assessee had sold shares only worth ₹ 83,712/- during the year under consideration inviting short term capital gain. As against that, bulk of the shares were held by the assessee for a long period of time inviting long term capital gain for a total sum of ₹ 53,84,239/-. Totality of the facts and circumstances of the case would lead to an inescapable conclusion that CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal correctly applied the factual and legal position.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1115
Gain on sale of shares - capital gain or busniss income - Held that:- Commissioner as well as the Tribunal concurrently found as a matter of fact that looking to the relevant factors including the amount of shareholding of the assessee, the volume and the frequency of the purchase and sale of shares etc., it cannot be stated that the assessee was in the business of trading of shares. More significantly, we find that the assessee had sold shares only worth ₹ 83,712/- during the year under consideration inviting short term capital gain. As against that, bulk of the shares were held by the assessee for a long period of time inviting long term capital gain for a total sum of ₹ 53,84,239/-. Totality of the facts and circumstances of the case would lead to an inescapable conclusion that CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal correctly applied the factual and legal position.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... personal expenditure. It is further noticed that the Hon’ble Bombay High court has categorically held that the expenses incurred for club membership fees of the employees cannot be disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(v). In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Otis Elevators referred to supra and American Express International Banking Corporation referred to supra the findings of the CIT (A) on this issue stands upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue on this issue stands dismissed.” Respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground of revenue’s appeal. 71. Ground No.18 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication, hence dismissed. 72. In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1063/Del/2006 and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.967/Del/2006 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 16th day of October, 2012.
........
|
