|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 708 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
TDS u/s 194C - Desallowance u/s 40(a) - payment to contractor / sub contractor - held that:- The authorities below have not examined the terms and conditions under which the AOP had transferred the amount of Rs.55,24,769/- in the account of one of its member. - From the orders of the Revenue Authorities, it is not evident that whether they have examined the correct nature of the payment and that whether the nature of payment was from a contractor to a sub-contractor. First of all, this preliminary enquiry has to be satisfied so as to arrive at the applicability of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194-C of IT Act. - matter remanded back.
Invocation of section 40A(2)(b) – Held that:- For the purpose of invocation of this section one of the essential ingredient is that where an assessee incurs any expenditure and the AO is the opinion that such an expenditure is excessive, then the unreasonable amount is not to be allowed as a deduction - whether the impugned payment to its member was in the nature of an expenditure; has not been clearly established. To ascertain and determine the nature of payment the clauses of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances of the case are required to be examined by ld.CIT(A) in the light of the facts narrated by the AO - appeal of the Assessee is allowed but for statistical purposes
-
2012 (11) TMI 707 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Cancelation of registration under Section 12AA – Held that:- when under the Act a specific provision for cancellation of registration is prescribed and the cancellation is possible under specific condition then fulfillment of those conditions are necessary for invoking the jurisdiction u/s.12AA(3). - In the present case the reason for cancellation for registration was that the definition of charitable purpose u/s.2(15) has been amended therefore the assessee has not carried out the activity as per the definition of “charitable purposes”. - CIT directed not to cancel the registration u/s.12AA(3) of IT Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 706 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance on account of Guarantee Commissions – guarantee commissions paid to directors on account of guarantee given by them to the bank. - Following the decision of court in CIT v. Metalizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (2008) as reported 8 DTR 12 (Raj)Held that:- since no difference in facts could be pointed out by DR of the Revenue, there is no reason to take a contrary view in the present year and hence, by respectfully following the precedent, issue is decided in favour of assessee in this year also - assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Interest Income and Service Charges – Interest income is to be assessable as income from business or income from other sources and whether neeting should be allowed or not - Following the decision of court in case of [CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip
2007 (1) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT, DELHI] held that:- even if interest is earned on fixed deposits for the purpose of availing of credit facilities from the bank, it does not have a nexus with the export business and therefore, has to necessarily be treated as income from other sources and not business income. They have also added a cavet as per which, if in a given case, the Assessing Officer has held that interest income is business income and this aspect has not been challenged by the Department, then that question can not to be permitted to be re-opened and then the only question will be if netting should be allowed. Since this aspect is squarely covered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, this aspect is decided against the assessee and Ground of netting off of the assessee is rejected because in the present case, AO has treated the interest income as income from other sources.
On netting aspect,it is held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this very case that to the extent the assessee can establish the nexus between interest payment and interest income by showing that interest expense was incurred for the purpose of earning interest income then to that extent netting should be allowed and only such net interest income should be considered for exclusion to the extent 90% from business profit as per clause (baa) of the Explanation to u/s 80HHC.- Decided in favor of assessee.
Processing charges - deduction u/s 80HHC - held that:- such processing charges are hit by clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC and therefore 90% of the same should be excluded from the business profit and such receipts should also be included in total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction allowable to the assessee u/s.80HHC. - decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of Expenses – Gift to employees - Held that:- Expenditure incurred under the welfare scheme for its employees to promote employer – employee relationship is held to have been incurred in the interest of business promotion. The disallowance made is, therefore, cancelled.
Disallowance on current repairs of machinery.- Held that:- repairs and overhauling of the machines is in the nature of current repairs aimed at preserving and maintaining the already existing machines. No new assets have come into existence nor is this the proposition of the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the expenditure incurred by the appellant is held to be revenue in nature. The disallowance made is cancelled. The Assessing Officer is directed to withdraw depreciation already allowed while giving effect to this order.
Deduction u/s 80HHC - Appellant is accounting income on account of credit for self generated power separately as income and not reducing it from the GEB bills since the GE shows it separately as a credit. Under the circumstances, this cannot be covered under any of the items in Explanation (baa). Under the circumstances, the exclusion of 90% of the said amount from the profits of the business for the purposes of deduction u/s.80HHC is cancelled. Similarly, the warranty provision written back as income is also held to be not covered under Explanation (baa) to sec. 80HHC. Under the circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in excluding the said amount from the profits of the business for the purposes deduction u/s.80HHC is also cancelled. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the deduction u/s.80HHC accordingly - appeal of Revenue is dismissed - In combine result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 705 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Payment made to the partners for hiring the tractors - excessive expenditure u/s 40A(2)(b) - held that:- A.O. should have called for the bills etc and might have examined the concerned partners and outsiders to unearth the truth before alleging that the payment made by the assessee to the partners is excessive and unreasonable. In the absence of any material being brought on record by the A.O. in support of this allegation that the amount paid by the assessee to the partners is unreasonable and excessive, disallowance made by him is not sustainable. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Interest free advances – held that:- Regarding this contention that these advances are business advances, no satisfactory evidence could be brought on record by the Ld. A.R. and hence, this argument is also rejected. Hence, it is seen that no interest free fund is available with the assessee which can be used for giving interest free advances and hence, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. - Payment of interest rightly disallowed - Decided in favor of revenue.
Disallowance of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund – The same was paid as per the statutory obligation for this purpose of business and therefore, there is no justification for disallowing the same. Following the decision of court in case of [CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] held that;-Payment of PF have been made before the due date of filing of return of income - no disallowance can be made regarding payment of employees’ contribution not PF – disallowance is deleted - Ground is allowed.
Disallowance at 1% of the expenses out of diesel purchase, oil and grease, repairs and maintenance, octroi, freight and cartage expenses. - held that:- A.O. himself has considered the value of defective vouchers at 1.5% of the total expenses and on this basis, he confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 1%. We are of the considered opinion that if majority of vouchers are available and are proper and only 1.5% vouchers are defective, no disallowance should be made on ad-hoc basis without pointing out any specific item of inadmissible expenditure.
Disallowance on account of vehicle running expenses and maintenance and telephone expenses. Held that:- 10% disallowance out of vehicle running expenses and maintenance and telephone expenses is reasonable and hence, order of CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed.
Deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) – held that:- assessee is seeking direction for allowing deduction in the year of payment of TDS - no such direction is required because it is in the Act itself that if the TDS is paid in a subsequent year, deduction is allowable in that year as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and hence, no such direction is called for - This ground is also rejected.
Interest on Interest free Advance – Held that:- Advances were given for the business purpose and hence no disallowance of interest at the rate of 15% was called for - without there being any nexus found with borrowed funds the disallowance be deleted.
Allowance of Rs.17,470/- u/s 40A(3) - Held that;- On the facts of the case, disallowance of Rs.17,470/- is unjust and genuineness of expense having not been doubted the same be allowed - In the combined result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 704 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition of ‘on money based on the seized papers of estimated sales - Addition was made by the A.O. for the assessment year 1998-99 to assessment year 2004-05 which was deleted by CIT(A). But there is no mention of the present assessment year in the seized material. In assessment year 2005-06, the tribunal has deleted similar addition in assessee’s own case by following the Tribunal order for assessment year 2004-05 in which, it was held that in the absence of any cogent evidence, there is no scope for extrapolation. Since, in the present year also, there is no evidence regarding receipt of any on money, addition cannot be made on the basis of seized material relating to earlier year. By respectfully following the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case, issue is decided in favour of the assessee - revenue’s appeal is rejected.
Deduction u/s. 80IB – Held that:- Assessee is not the legal owner of the land and was carrying on the activity of developing and building housing project on a land which is not owned by him There is a complete identity between the assessee referred to in Section 80IB(S) and the undertaken referred to in section 80IB(10) and this identity becomes further clear from rule 18BBB prescribing the Form No. 10CCB of audit report to be furnished by the assessee by virtue of Section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(7) - matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision - In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2012 (11) TMI 703 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Dis allowance of account of payment of commission - The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.84,47,845/- as deduction towards Commission payments, out of which a sum of Rs.79,46,846/- was claimed to have been paid to Shri Sandeep Mehta, proprietor of M/s Safal Inc., Mumbai. - The AO also recorded a statement u/s 131 of the Act from Shri Sandeep Mehta and in the said statement also he averred that he has received only Rs.9,71,000/- from the assessee company. - AO made the additions but CIT(A) deleted the additions - held that:- The action of the AO in not affording the opportunity of cross examination to the assessee is against the principles of natural justice. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the impugned issue requires reconsideration at the end of the assessing officer, in which the AO should invariably provide opportunity of cross examination of Shri Sandeep Mehta to the assessee.
Section 43B - Disallowance relating to the “Finance charges” claimed by the assessee - payment of scheduled bank - Held that:- the assessee did not file any evidence to show that the above cited Co-operative banks would not fall in the category of Scheduled Bank as defined in sec. 11(5)(iii) of the Act, more particularly the copy of Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank India Act, 1934. - matter remanded back.
Share application money - held that:- here is no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned amount of Rs.36.60 lakhs pertains to Share application money and the assessee has furnished the names and addresses of the share holders along with other details that were available with it. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 702 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Interest income as income from other sources - disallowance of various expenses and depreciation - commencement of business – held that:- Activity of the company during the year was only of a pre-operative nature and commencement of business could be said to have started only when it started exploitation of the project. The object of the company was to set up growth centres and thereafter to exploit them. It was the second limb of activity which provided for regular business activity. Thereafter, building repairs, rewiring, installation of lift, etc., were carried on by the assessee company for the purpose of converting the residential accommodation to business and storage accommodation - order of the CIT(A)is confirmed and dismiss the appeals of the assessee - issue involved in these two appeals is squarely covered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case for A.Ys 1998-99 to 2001-02 and no reason to take a contrary view in the present two years and hence, by respectfully following the precedent, issue is decided against the assessee in the present two years also - In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 701 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition made on account of disallowance of Administrative & Other Expenses u/s.14A – Held that:- In the present appeal as well undisputed fact is that only one dividend warrant of Rs.4,55,829/- was received by the assessee. Indeed it was highly improbable and beyond rational view that in order to earn a dividend of Rs.4,55,829/-, that too by a single dividend warrant, the assessee had incurred a huge administrative expense as assessed by the AO.
Newly inserted subsections to section 14A would be applicable from the Asst.Year 2007-08 and Rule 8D shall be effective from A.Y. 2008-09 because of the trite principle of law that the law which could apply to an Assessment Year is the law prevailing on the 1st day of April. Since the Respected Lower Authority has added only a trifle amount of Rs.60,000/- by disallowance u/s.14A, therefore without disturbing the same we hereby dismiss this ground of the Revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 679 - ITAT COCHIN
Notice u/s 143(2) for regular assessment u/s 143(3) - computation of period of limitation - Filing of form ITR-V – held that:- The scheme framed by CBDT has clarified that the date of transmitting the return electronically shall be the date of furnishing of return, if the form ITR-V is furnished in the prescribed manner and within the period specified. In this case, the period specified is 31-12-2010 or 120 days from the date of uploading the return whichever is later. Admittedly form ITR-V was received by CPC on 29-11-2010 is within the prescribed time in the prescribed manner in the prescribed form. Hence, for all practical purpose, the date of filing of the return shall relate back to the date on which the return was electronically uploaded i.e. 25-09-2009. Therefore, the contention of the ld.DR that receipt of Form ITR-V is the date of receipt of return has no merit at all - date of filing of the return of income is 25-09-2009.
Therefore, the notice served on the taxpayer u/s 143(2) on 26-08-2011 is beyond the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Therefore, the notice issued by the assessing officer u/s 143(2) is invalid. Hence, it cannot be acted upon. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer cannot stand in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same is quashed. the object behind the filing of form ITR-V the method prescribed by CBDT for transmitting the same by ordinary or speed post and the consequence of not filing the Form ITR-V within the specified time are left open to be decided in appropriate appeal.
-
2012 (11) TMI 678 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Interest u/s 220(2) for delayed payment of legitimate Government dues which always remained quantified to the extent of Assessee's liability to pay balance self-assessment tax in pursuance of revised return by him on 12.1.1984 - held that: - all tax liability, except advance tax, have been made liable to be followed by a notice under section 156 and only when the assessee fails to comply with the conditions of the notice under section 156 and fails to pay the due amount, then he is liable to pay interest. No other provision has been shown to us creating any liability for self assessment default cases and for deemed defaulter under section (3) of section 140A.
Undisputedly notice under section 156 was given to the assessee after final assessment order dated 24th March, 1992. The authorities were, thus, right in holding that the assessee in the present case was liable to pay interest from the date of the order dated 24th March, 1992. - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 677 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee was in distressed and filed inaccurate particulars of Income - held that:- Assessee has claimed the expenditure of amount of liability of the interest accrued which, in fact, was found that he did not pay within the financial year. However, for that purpose the assessee was not asked to furnish explanation etc. was the reason given by the Tribunal - Tribunal committed no mistake in allowing the appeal of the assessee and in fact in this appeal no question of law is involved and question of law as framed is because of misreading of the order passed by the Tribunal wherein only contention of the assessee's representative has been recorded with respect to the distressful state of mind of the assessee - provision providing for penalty upon mere giving wrong particulars and this fact is not an admitted fact - no force in the submission of Revenue to accept the mechanical reading of the said Section only which is in isolation to the facts of the case, therefore, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 676 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
MAT - Whether the Tribunal was justified to hold that provision for wages of Rs. 48,19,00,000/- should be set off against the income for assessment year 1989-90 for computation of taxable income for the assessment year 1990-91 for the purpose of section 115 J of the Income Tax Act? - held that:- revenue could not satisfy that because of this decision of I.T.A.T. there will be any variation in the tax effect. - Therefore, there is no need to answer this question and the appeal is liable to be dismissed because it is not affecting the revenue in any manner. - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 675 - ITAT CHENNAI
Technical or Consultancy Service – Deduction of TDS u/s 195 - Whether US company, which incidentally was a subsidiary of the assessee, was rendering any technical services, which warranted a deduction of tax at source, in accordance with Section 195 of the Act – Held that:- Technical or Consultancy Service rendered should be of such a nature that it "makes available" to the recipient technical knowledge, know-how and the like. The service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the service could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service provider. In other words, to fit into the terminology "making available", the technical knowledge, skills, etc., must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end. It is not enough that the services offered are the product of intense technological effort and a lot of technical knowledge and experience of the service provider have gone into it. The technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in the future without depending upon the provider. In other words, payment of consideration would be regarded as "fee for technical included services" only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time is satisfied."
The scope of work would show that different types of services were rendered by the subsidiary in USA. With regard to the Marketing Agreement, and Overseas Services Agreement, no part thereof was having income element which was chargeable to tax under the provisions of Income-tax Act in India in view of Article 12.4 of DTAA. Therefore, insofar as payments made against bills raised by the non-resident entity of the assessee based on these two agreements, assessee could never be fastened with liability to deduct tax at source. However, for the second agreement, namely, "Offshore Development (Facilitation) Agreement", one of the items of services rendered by the entity abroad could have an element of income chargeable to tax in India, since it could involve making available technical services to the assessee in India. If the services rendered by the entity abroad with regard to the said agreement were such that technical skills were made available to the assessee in India, then of course, Section 195 of the Act will apply. Assessee having not made any application under Section 195(2) of the Act, it could be fastened with a failure to deduct tax at source as specified under Section 195 of the Act. Then of course, rigours of Section 40(a)(i) would be attracted - Orders of authorities are set aside and remit the issue insofar as it relates to payments made by the assessee to its subsidiary abroad with regard to "Offshore Development (Facilitation) Agreement" back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh in the light of DTAA between India and USA, in accordance with law - In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (11) TMI 674 - ITAT MUMBAI
Set off and Carry forward of Business loss as well as current year's depreciation against Long Term capital gains – held that:- legal fiction created by provisions of Sec. 32(2) of the Act has been subjected to the provisions of Sec. 72(2) and 73(3) of the Act.In case of set off of business loss vis-a-vis depreciation, the first preference shall be given to the business loss as per the provisions of Sec. 72(1) of the Act for the simple reason that the business loss can be carried forward only upto 8 assessment years whereas the depreciation can be carried over upto unlimited period. Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation is treated as current years' depreciation because of the legal fiction, therefore the treatment given to the current year's depreciation is equally applicable to brought forward depreciation after the application of Finance Act, 2001 - current year's depreciation is to be allowed as set off from the Long Term Capital Gains and brought forward depreciation is to be treated as current year's depreciation as per the legal fiction of section 32(2), the same is also to be allowed to be set off from the Long Term Capital Gains - In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 673 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure Tax, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes, Writ – Tariff of the rooms exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs.1,200/- Held that: - No doubt, the word "any" is capable of having more than one meaning but that will not prevent the courts from making an endeavour to place the correct and true meaning with due regard to the consequences resulting in hardship, injustice and absurdity. A construction should always be made to achieve the object of the enactment rather than to defeat the same. Therefore, we hold that the word "any" occurring in Section 3 of the Expenditure Tax Act does not mean "all" alone but on the other hand it means "all" or "every" as well as "some" or "one".
Held that:- the assessee is liable for levy of tax under the Expenditure Tax Act 1987 as admittedly the assessee's tariff rate exceeded the limit of Rs.1,200/-. However, though the assessee is held to be liable, that would not be taken to mean that the entire expenditure of the assessee as found by the Assessing Authority should be brought to tax.
Since the tax is payable by the customers who avail any of the services enumerated under Section 5 of the Act, it is such expenditure incurred by such person who occupies and the expenditure incurred during such time for all or any of the services rendered alone would constitute chargeable expenditure and the assessee becomes liable for the same under Expenditure Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer bringing the entire expenditure liable for expenditure tax is held as not correct. - Decided in favor of revenue.
Decision in case of [H. P. Tourism Development Corporation Versus Union of India And Others 1998 (12) TMI 59 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT], followed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 672 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest on Delayed Refund - Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to grant refund where the return was filed on 29.03.1996 after one year from the end of the assessment year in violation of the provision of the Section 239(2)(c) of the Act? - Held that:- on a reading of Sections 239, 240 and 243 of the Act, one will know that while Section 239 covers cases of the assessee on self-assessment making a claim for refund within the time limit specified therein, Section 240 provides for refund which is contemplated under the Act without even an application from the assessee, but must emanate from the Officer itself consequent on the order passed on appeal or other proceedings under the Act.
Barring these two provisions, there is no other provision, which speaks on refund to the assessee consequent on the assessment. Even in the absence of any such specific provision placing responsibility on the assessee/an Officer to seek or grant refund, Section 243 of the Act contemplates grant of interest in cases, where the assessee is entitled to refund even without making an application in contract to cases where on application, refund to be granted would carry no interest.
Thus, on a return filed, where there is determination of income under the Act and the assessment order relates to refund to be granted to the assessee as per Section 243(1)(a) of the Act, refund has to be granted within a period of three months. If the Assessing Officer does not grant the refund, the refund would carry interest as contemplated under Section 243(1)(b) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 671 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rental income – Income from Business / Property - "(1) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the rental receipts derived from letting out of properties should be assessed under the head 'Business'? - (2) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenses incurred for the purpose of letting out of the properties should be allowed as 'business expenditure'?" – held that:- Company had taken lands on 90 years lease with the objects of constructing I.T. Company with all its infrastructural facilities, the same was for the purpose of establishing and providing the amenities required to run, maintain, manage or administer computer centres for manufacturing or processing software packages and /or hardware materials and components required for computer industry, to exploit it as a business proposition - order of the Tribunal is confirmed, thereby, holding that the lease rentals are assessable as business income only - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 670 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Notice of Reassessment – AO held that he had reasons to believe that the amount declared as hire-charges were, in fact, interest. - Following the decision of court in case of [Syal Leasing Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another 2003 (9) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] held that:- AO has already determined that the relevant agreements executed by the petitioner were with a view to finance the vehicles and that those were not leasing agreements. That finding of the AO was affirmed by the CIT (Appeals). Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the CIT (Appeals), the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which is pending - In view of the findings recorded by the AO in the case of the assessee for the AY 1998-99 AO had sufficient reason to believe to issue a notice u/s 148 – decided against Assesssee.
Real nature of the transaction - Hire purchase vs Sale - Held that:- Total amount payable and the period of payment, as hire-charges is part of the agreement; the sample agreement produced - executed by the assessee with one Sh. Amit Singh, discloses that the hirer was to pay Rs.12,500/- per month, effective from 10.02.2001 and that the hirer could, at any time during the hire, become owner of the vehicle on making payment of hire fully for the whole period of agreement. Having provided so, the agreement is silent as to what constituted the period of its tenure.
Hire-purchase concerns two elements - bailment and sale in the sense that it visualizes an eventual sale which fructifies when the option is exercisable by the purchaser after fulfilling the terms of the agreement. In the present case, however, the tenure of the agreement itself is unknown; the hirer, in fact, is the registered owner of vehicle. Having regard to these features and the other discussed elaborately by the Tribunal and the CIT(A), this Court is of the opinion that findings impugned in this case do not call for any interference on the merits. This question too is answered against the assessee - appeal is meritless; it is, therefore, dismissed.
Decision in K.L. Johar & Co. (1964 (11) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), followed
-
2012 (11) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT
Sale of Sugar at concessional price to its Members on monthly basis - difference between the fair market price and the concessional price taxable or not - held that:- CIT(A) would be entitled to look into the Accounts and verify the basis for sale of sugar at concessional price on month-to-month basis - CIT(A) would give liberty to both sides to produce relevant documents - remit the cases to CIT(A) to de-novo consider the matter - civil appeals filed by the Department are disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 668 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Concealment of Income - held that:- Tribunal was justified in observing that the assessing officer before imposing penalty did not held any independent inquiry and no specific and concrete materials were brought on record by the assessing officer to establish the fact that the assessee had really concealed the amount and Tribunal was also justified in the facts of the case, in observing that no material indicating any specific asset, investment or income to the extent of the said amount were brought on record - Tribunal has not committed any error. Therefore, the question is answered that in the facts of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).
............
|
