|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1329
... ...
... ... ..... tion nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the light of the decision given in Tax Appeal No. 14/1999R dated 13th June, 2012. 4. So far as question no. 3 is concerned, it is with respect to deletion of disallowances in respect of expenditure incurred on community development for the assessment year 199394/199495 under the head of expenditure for sports, recreation and Game expenses. 5. In view of the reasons given in two judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. ( 1978 115 ITR 659 (Delhi)) and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( 1986 158 ITR 64 (Delhi)), we are of the considered opinion that the issue has already been answered by the Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee and we are in full agreement with reasons given by Delhi High Court in the above two judgments. The question no.3 is answered in favour of the assessee. Thus, these appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1327
... ...
... ... ..... aking a claim u/s 37(1) as expenditure or u/s 36(2) as a bad debt. This expenditure cannot be allowable under this provision where this expenditure is not an expenditure incurred for the purpose of assessee's own business and also this is loss of capital and cannot be allowed as a bad debt as discussed in earlier paras. Accordingly, these grounds of the appeal are dismissed.” 29. Since the issue is materially identical to the one decided by the coordinate bench in the case of VST Industries Ltd. (supra), respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of write off of Rs. 2,27,52,698 as ‘bad debt’ or as ‘expenditure’ and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the assessee in this regard. 30. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 31. To sum up, both the appeals of the revenue as well as assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 27/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1326
... ...
... ... ..... machinery. Therefore, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and this ground is also liable to be rejected. 4. Now, coming to the appeal filed by the Revenue, the ground is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in allowing the depreciation claim of the assessee on project assets at the rate of 10% applicable to buildings. It is the case of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled for any amount of depreciation, as the assessee is not the owner of the asset built in by it. But, as already pointed out by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), the Tribunal has held in similar cases that the assessee is entitled for depreciation at the rate of 10%. This ground of the Revenue, therefore, fails. 5. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 22nd of November, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1325
... ...
... ... ..... relied on the orders of the CIT(A) and A.O. 13. We have perused the rival contentions and submission and heard the arguments from both the sides. It is fact that the assessee had not charged any interest in case of Pranjee Properties P. Ltd. on Rs.30 lacs and Impact Impex on Rs. 11 lacs, which were advanced during the year. Remainings were advanced in earlier years. The appellant had various interest free funds available in form of share capital, reserve surplus, share application money substantially. Further, the unsecured loan had been gone down by Rs.40 lacs compared to preceding year. There is no direct nexus has been established by the A.O. that interest free advances given out of loan taken on interest. Thus, we have considered view that the addition made by the A.O., confirmed by the CIT(A) is not warranted. Accordingly, we delete the addition. 14. In the combined result, Assessee’s appeals are partly allowed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 09.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1322
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee so as to invoke Explanation 1 to section 41(1). In our opinion, it is just a case of capitalizing the interest expenditure to comply with the monetary requirements of AS-10 by passing the necessary entries in the books of account which has not resulted in any advantage or benefit to the assessee either by way of remission or cessation of any liability or in any other manner. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue thus is not sustainable and deleting the same, we allow ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 1994-95. 30. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 1994-95, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03 are dismissed. The appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2001-02 is partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1994-95 is partly allowed and all the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced Court on this 23rd day of Nov., 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1321
... ...
... ... ..... e benefit of deduction under sec.80IA treating the windmill as a separate and independent business unit. 6. Once the above stand is upheld, the next question is whether the income from carbon credit is to be assessed under other sources or under the head business. There is no basis to treat such income as income from other sources. It is not an income from other source. On the other hand, it is the income coming from the business of running the windmill. The income from sale of carbon credits is earned by the assessee in the course of carrying on the business of running the windmill. Therefore, this is business income. Accordingly the income from sale of carbon credits would form part of eligible profits in the hands of the assessee for the purpose of working out the deduction available under sec.80IA. 6. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 29th of November, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1316
... ...
... ... ..... de to treat the same as deemed concealment of income. It is a settled law that every addition of income by the A.O. will not automatically attract levy of penalty. From the reading of explanation 1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) it is clear that while computing the total income of an assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that the explanation is bonafide then there will be a deemed concealment by the assessee. Seen in the background of the provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) and the aforesaid decisions of the High Court, in the present case, the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be not bonafide. The decision relied by the Revenue is distinguishable on the facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that no penalty is leviable in the present case. We thus direct the deletion of penalty. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 9 - 11 - 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1315
... ...
... ... ..... ettled legal position, we consider it fair and appropriate to vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) as also set aside the reassessment order and remit the matter to the file of the AO with the directions to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The AO shall dispose of the preliminary objections by passing a speaking order and only thereafter proceed with the reassessment in accordance with law. With these observations, ground nos.1& 2 in the appeal are disposed of. As a corollary, the other ground nos. 3 & 4 raised in the appeal do not survive for adjudication at this stage and are, therefore, treated as infructuous. 8. Ground no.5 in the appeal being general in nature, does not require any separate adjudication and is, therefore, dismissed. 9. No other plea or argument was made before us. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (11) TMI 1314
... ...
... ... ..... nafide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which one is prone to make. Absence of due care does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing of inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances in the present case and seen in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (supra) since all the necessary facts with respect to the claim of disallowance and deductions were furnished in the tax audit report the fact that the disallowance has been made of expenditure reported in tax report does not call for levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c). We thus cancel the penalty levied by the A.O. Therefore, this ground of assessee is allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 23-11- 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1311
... ...
... ... ..... ng authority had insisted at the time of original assessment, the assessee could have produced the original certified copy of the sale deed after obtaining the same from the buyer of the property. Therefore, there is no ground to say that the assessee has not furnished the necessary details. 5. Therefore we find that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully the details and particulars necessary for completing the assessment under section 143(3). When there is no such failure on the part of the assessee, there cannot be an income-escaping assessment under section 147 after the expiry of a period of four years. Therefore, we have to hold that the impugned assessment is barred by limitation. 6. Accordingly, the impugned assessment is set aside and as such the order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) is vacated. 7. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Orders pronounced on Monday, the 26th of November, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1310
... ...
... ... ..... harges are also to be excluded from the total turnover in view of Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sak Soft Ltd. 313 ITR (AT) 535 . The Departmental Representative relied on grounds of appeal. 20. We have heard the parties. We are not in agreement with the argument of the Counsel for the Assessee that no part of telecommunication charges are to be excluded from export turnover for the purpose of allowing relief under sec.10A of the Act. However, we agree with the alternative submission of the Counsel for the Assessee that in view of the Special Bench decision in the case of Sak Soft Ltd. (supra), the telecommunication charges are to be excluded from the export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of alllowing relief under sec.10A of the I.T. Act. 21. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cos filed by the assessee are partly allowed. 22. Order pronounced on Friday, the 30th of November 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1307
... ...
... ... ..... e employees. 10. In the case on hand, tax is payable on medical advance and in certain cases tax has been paid. Only where bills have been produced by the employee to the employer it was a case of reimbursement and to the extent of the benefit given in 17(2) proviso (v) the employee need not pay tax. This is not a case where the attribution of personal benefits directly to an employee poses of problem or a case where it is not feasible to tax the benefit in question in the hands of the employee. It is only a case where a benefit above a certain specified amount only is liable to be taxed in the hands of the employee. Such case, in our humble opinion, does not constitute fringe benefit in section 115WB of the Act…..” Respectfully following the above referred judgment of the coordinating bench we decide the Ground no.2 in favour of the assessee-company. As a result appeal filed for AY 2007-08 stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1306
... ...
... ... ..... nished. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to reopen the assessment. 8. With regard to correctness of the details of the receipts from trading and manufacturing, it becomes just and necessary to probe into accounts to bifurcate the income from trading and manufacturing to ascertain the expenses to be allocated in order to appreciate to what extent the assessee would be entitled for deduction under Clause 3 of Sub-section 2 of S.80IA of the Act. 9. It is the contention of the assessee that the exemption given initially in the first year is accepted and the same should be continued for further years is a question left open to be canvassed before the Assessing Officer. The question whether making of water filter amounts to industrial and manufacturing activity is also kept open for consideration. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is upheld. The Assessing Officer shall take note of the observations made above while making assessment and granting deductions.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1305
... ...
... ... ..... ed the payments and has certified that the payments have been made by deposits into the bank account of the payees and therefore, no further verification is required. 11. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the assessee’s claim of payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/-being made by direct deposits into the bank account of the suppliers would be proved only after verification of the additional evidence which has been filed before us. As these evidences are very essential for adjudication of the issue, we deem it fit and proper to remand the same to the file of the AO only for the purpose for verification of the fact as to whether the payments are made by way of direct deposits into the bank accounts of the recipients and if it is found to be so, then no disallowance is called for. 12. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 2nd November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1304
... ...
... ... ..... ect the Revenue's appeal in T.C.(A). No. 1366/2008, thereby, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is confirmed. 9. Consequent on the order passed by the Commissioner, the Assessing Officer proceeded in giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 263 of the Act and held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Aggrieved by that, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the assessee's appeal based on the earlier order, which is the subject matter of consideration in T.C. (A). No.1366/2008. 10. In the light of the order passed in T.C.(A). 1366/2008, it is not necessary for us to consider the same question again in T.C. (A). 889/2009. In the circumstances, the question does not arise for consideration by us in T.C.889/2009. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1302
... ...
... ... ..... e order of the Tribunal and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Even in this case also, similar questions of law arise. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... sue and for the reasons recorded therein, confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. As the issue raised by the Revenue is similar and identical, our findings recorded (in para 17.2. above) holds good here too. It is ordered accordingly. In essence, this ground of the Revenue is allowed. 24. The last ground relates to (Ground No.8) customs duty on machinery. This issue has been dealt with by us in the asssessee’s appeal (supra). Our findings recorded therein hold good here also. It is ordered accordingly. In essence, this issue is decided in favour of the Revenue. 25. In the result (i) the assessee’s appeal for the AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 are partly allowed for statistical purpose; (ii) The Revenue’s appeals for the AY 2006-07 ITA Nos.1269/B/10 & 141/B/11 - two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose & (iii) The Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is partly allowed. The order pronounced on the 30th day of November, 2012 at Bangalore.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1300
... ...
... ... ..... imating 1% of suppressed yield for making addition.” 5. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we are of the conscientious view that the AO has not followed the directions of the Tribunal as given by order dated 18/02/2010 (supra). The direction of the Tribunal was that the AO shall confront the comparable cases choosing by him to the assessee before adopting the GP rate at 5.20%. On this aspect, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for deciding the issue relating to application of GP rate. The AO was therefore expected to re-assessee the income as per the directions of the Tribunal and to proceed with the assessment within those four corners. By adopting “yield method” which was apparently not the direction of the Tribunal, the AO had exceeded its jurisdiction, therefore we hereby hold that ld.CIT(A) has rightly held so. Resultantly, we hereby dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 6. As a result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1299
Deduction for Employment of New Employees u/s 80JJAA - Reopening of Assessment u/s 147 - A revised return was filed by assessee company where claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA was made and was duly allowed by AO. Matter was reopened after 4 years where the assessee was informed that during the previous year regular workmen totaling 53 were employed by it and since the number of regular workmen employed during the previous year was less than 10% of the existing number of workmen, no deduction was allowable in respect of additional wages paid to regular workmen u/s 80JJAA.
HELD THAT:- Reopening after four years is legal if the assessee had not provided all material facts along with return of income and or during assessment proceedings. Assessee, through audit report had tried to mislead the department by showing number of new regular workmen at 53. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 allowed.
Decision against assessee.
Decision in the case of HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2011 (2) TMI 1184 - DELHI HIGH COURT], relied upon
-
2012 (11) TMI 1297
... ...
... ... ..... f the Act, a shareholder has not only to be a beneficial shareholder but also a registered shareholder. Here, the assessee was not a shareholder at all in M/s GB Engineering Enterprises Private Ltd. As for the decision in the case of National Travel Services (supra) of Delhi High Court, relied on by the CIT(Appeals), there the assessee was a partnership firm and the shares of the company, which had given the loan, were held by its partners for and on behalf of such firm. On the other hand, here the assessee is not at all a partnership firm and therefore, in our opinion, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of National Travel Services (supra) has no application. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the addition made in the hands of the assessee under Section 2(22)(e) cannot stand. Such addition is deleted. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Wednesday, the 7th of November, 2012, at Chennai.
........
|
