|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1242 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... apply to the present case which falls under instruction No. 3 dated 9.2.2011. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of CIT v Pithwa Engg. Work wherein it has been held that “In our view, the Board’s circular dt. 27th March, 2000 is very much applicable even to the old references which are still undecided”, we dismiss the departmental appeal on the ground that the tax effect is less than 3 lakhs.” Following the aforesaid precedent, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed in view of CBDT Instruction No. 3 dated 9.2.2011 (supra) as the tax effect with respect to the quantum of relief allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is below ₹ 3 lakhs and it has not been shown that the appeal falls under any of the exceptions provided in para 8 of the CBDT Instruction (supra). We order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Decision is pronounced in the open court on 12-11-2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1240 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... . Therefore, in respect of the residential units numbering 211 in all, the persons who undertook this undertaking are entitled to the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act in proportion to the share to which they are entitled to in the built up area.” A perusal of the above clearly shows that the owner of the land as well as the party that has undertaken construction of the housing project are termed as ‘developer’ and are therefore entitled for the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, it is evident that the assessee is a developer and builder of the project. The assessee had already placed on record the necessary documents for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10). We therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 30th day of November, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1233 - ITAT, HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ce of recoverability, then there is a provision in the Act to claim the same as bad debt. Various case law relied by the assessee's counsel is of no relevance to the facts of the present case. In view of this, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) not justified in deleting the disallowance proportionate interest on the loan advanced to the sister concern. This ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed.” 23. Since the issue is identical to that of the case M/s Suryavamshi Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) decided by the coordinate bench, respectfully following the same we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same in the light of the said decision of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s Suryavamshi Spinning Mills Ltd.(supra). This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 24. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 27/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1231 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... submissions and perusing the material on record, I found that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Durgadevi Mundra and Shri Mukesh Mundra (supra), where identical facts were involved. Similarly, these cases were also reopened on information that the assessee was involved in claiming purchase and sale of shares to earn capital gain etc. The Tribunal after examining the issue in detail and following the decision Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chandrakant Babulal Shah, passed in 6108/M/2008, where similar facts were involved, allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Copy of the decision of the Tribunal has been placed on record. Therefore, following the aforesaid decisions, I delete the addition of ₹ 1,71,615/- as the facts are similar to the above mentioned cases. I order accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27thday of Nov. 2012. 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income accrued to the assessee in India in respect of supply of equipment - business connection of the assessee in India - Duty is cast on the payer to pay tax at source, on failure on the part of the payee, no interest u/s. 234B - income of the assessee arising on account of “Royalty and Fees for Technical Services” is taxable on receipt basis and not on accrual basis
-
2012 (11) TMI 1226 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, even when the relevant receipted challans evidencing such payments were duly produced before the learned CIT(Appeals) in the course of the hearing of the appeal before him". 24. Learned representatives fairly agree that these issues can also be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assesese to produce the requisite challan. In case, the assessee is able to produce the challan evidencing payment of taxes, needless to say, the disallowance will stand deleted. 25. Ground Nos. 8 & 9 are thus also allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 27. To sum up, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1223 - ITAT PUNE
Entitled for deduction u/s. 80P - Held that:- It is well settled principle in the interpretation of the ‘taxing provisions’ that the same are to be strictly construed and there is n room for any intendment. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read or nothing is to be implied. One has to fairly look into language used by the Parliament. The Parliament has adopted the definition of the Co-operative Bank by refering the same as given in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is called Legislation by reference and we have to give the strict interpretation while interpreting the effect of Sub-sec. (4) to Sec. 80 P. In our opinion, Cooperative Credit Society is distinct and separate from the Co-operative Bank nor it can be said as a Primary Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Hence, the assessee being a Co-operative Credit Society is entitled for deduction u/s. 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1221 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... However, considering the fact that the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 17th February, 2012 was not available at the relevant point of time and however, the CIT (A) followed the said decisions in the assessee’s own case, which considered the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No.3286-3287/2010) while giving relief to the assessee as evident from para 6 of the impugned order. The judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd (supra) which is relied upon by the Ld Counsel before us. Considering the settled nature of the issue at the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that order of CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1219 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... i, Adv., Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1218 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Short term capital loss disallowed - Held that:- Such share transactions were not quoted and consequently, were not traded through stock exchange. When all the facts and circumstances of the case are viewed, in totality, it is evident that the assessee appellants failed to discharge the onus, to prove the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sales of such shares. The impugned transactions of shares are preordained one, not for legitimate commercial purpose in view but for the purpose of creating non-genuine and artificial short term capital loss, with a view to reducing valid taxliability.
These transactions of shares were not governed by market factors prevalent at that relevant time, in such trade, but the same are product of the design and mutual understanding on the part of the appellants and the said Hissar based unlisted company. CIT(Appeals) has failed to bring any cogent and credible evidence, to dislodge such finding. Having regard to the peculiar fact-situation of the present case, it is evident that such share transactions were close circuit transactions and clearly structured one. No merit in the findings of the CIT(Appeals).
Having regard all the findings of the CIT(Appeals) cannot be sustained and, hence, the same are reversed. Further, an offer to surrender the impugned loss, subject to no penal action, made by the appellants before the AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, is an important piece of evidence, hence, cannot be ignored lightly. Consequently, the findings of the AO, as recorded in the impugned assessment order, are restored.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1217 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... assessee which he refused to receive. He submitted that due to non-receipt of the notice of hearing by the Tribunal the assessee could not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through his Authorised Representative. He submitted that in the interest of justice the exparte order of the Tribunal should be recalled and the assessee should be given an opportunity to argue her case on merit. 3. After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for non-appearance on the date of hearing. We, therefore, recall the order of the Tribunal and direct the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on 01-01-2013 which was announced in the open court. It was also announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent to which both the parties agreed. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open court at the time of hearing itself on this the 23rd day of November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1216 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... was redeposited in the bank after a gap of few months. We do not find any merit in the order of the authorities below in treating the said redeposit of cash in the bank account as income under section 68 of the Act. 10. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT-II Vs. Parneeta Goyal (supra) on similar facts where cash was withdrawn on earlier dates and was redeposited in the bank account of the assessee held that there was no merit in the addition in view of the explanation of the assessee in respect of the gap of entries between cash withdrawals and deposit in the bank account being operated by the assessee. Following the above said and in view of the facts of the present case, we find no merit in the aforesaid addition made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the same and allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1215 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nd gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find from the assessment order dated 09/12/2008 for AY 2006-07, a sum of ₹ 7,36,555/- was offered to tax by the assessee and assessed as such by the AO. The CIT passed the order u/s 263 directing the AO to bring to tax the said sum of ₹ 7,36,555/- for the AY 2005-06, which is the year under consideration. In this case, there is no dispute that the assessee is following mercantile accounting system and if the impugned amount of ₹ 7,36,555/- is accrued during the year under consideration, the same is to be offered to tax. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to examine whether this receipt of ₹ 7,36,555/- is accrued to the assessee or not in the year under consideration and decide the issue in accordance with law. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 07/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1214 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... facilities before the last date envisaged under the scheme and thereafter, there was no obligation on its part to ensure that industrial units on such plots must also come into existence and commence their production activities, impugned show cause notice for withdrawal of approval of assessee’s industrial park is liable to be quashed and CBDT is directed to notify the same.” 8. From the material available on record, we find that the facts involved in assessment year 2007-08 and the impugned assessment year are identical and no changed circumstances have been brought to our notice to deviate from the aforesaid decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA (4)(iii) of the Act. 9. In view of the above, we uphold the findings of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Order pronounced in the court on 27-11-2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1213 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... Act which means that this would not exceed the maximum amount provided under the Act.” 6. We follow the above judgment. The CIT(A) while confirming the addition solely relied upon the C.B.D.T. Circular No.739 holding that the assessee did not comply with the directions of section 40(b)(v) read with C.B.D.T. Circular. The CIT(A) without pointing out how the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh is distinguishable, it has been distinguished by simply stating that the said judgment is distinguishable. Whereas, we find that the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has, after considering the C.B.D.T. Circular, held that in such circumstances, remuneration is allowable to the assessee under section 40(b)(v) of the Act. We follow the above judgement of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court and in the light of that, the claim of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1212 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s therefore directed to be deleted.” 6. Having heard the submission of both the sides and also considering the factual aspect of the case in the light of comparative chart placed on record, we have noted that the admitted factual position was that there was increase in the price of the Diesel by 7.04 and that was stated to be one of the reasons for the impugned increase in the Diesel expenditure. It has also been explained by ld.AR that considering the break-up of the “Transport Receipt” it was found that the Diesel expenditure incurred by the assessee for running the machinery was higher in comparison to the past years since the customers have contributed Diesel less than the past year. All these facts have, therefore, duly explained the reason for increase in Diesel expenses for the year under consideration, hence we hereby uphold the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1211 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2011 331 ITR 458 in which almost in similar circumstances, the penalty was held to be imposed validly in accordance law. 16. In all the cases relied on by Sri Rahul Agarwal there was an explanation given by assessee. In the present case there is no explanation whatsoever, for submitting inaccurate particulars and of concealment of income. The circumstances, in which the income was surrendered on the pretext of buying peace have not been explained. The findings of the CIT (A), that the penalty could not be imposed, was thus not sustainable. 17. We find that the Tribunal has given sufficient reasons, and has considered the entire facts and circumstances in arriving at a finding that unless the explanation is found to be satisfactory, and by which the assessee may prove his bonafides, the penalty can be imposed, invoking Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 18. The question of law is decided against the assessee, and in favour of the revenue. 19. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1210 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ords “reason to believe” but also inserted the word “opinion” in section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words “reason to believe”, Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word “opinion” on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer.” 11. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, we are of the view that the reasons recorded in this case are not bonafide and it is merely change of opinion. On this basis itself the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 are invalid and in consequence thereof the assessment framed is also invalid and accordingly we quash the same. 12. In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2001-2002 and 2002- 2003 are partly allowed while the appeal for the assessment year 2003-2004 is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 23/11/2012)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1208 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ces furnished by the assessee by way of supplementary evidence are indeed comparable to the case of the assessee to corroborate the arm’s length nature of its international transaction in adherence to the principles of arm’s length and then analyse pricing policy of the assessee in the light of the said evidence which was not in the possession of the assessee earlier. It is needless to mention over here that while deciding the issue afresh the A.O. will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. We also set aside the issues raised in ground nos. 7 and 8 of the appeal to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration in view of the above development in this regard pointed out by the ld. AR. after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground nos. 1, 1.1 to 6, 7 and 8 are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The order is pronounced in the open Court on the day of 22/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... and against the department after observing and holding as under - “20. The next issue for the assessment year 1994-95 is an addition of Rs. 11,87,960/- being interest on amounts receivable from partnership firms. Here also the first Appellate Authority found that there was no diversion of funds for non-business purpose. It was also found by him that interest bearing funds were not diverted for interest free loans and thus no disallowance of interest ought to be made. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not levying this ground, ultimately submitted that the finding of the first Appellate Authority need to be upheld. Thus, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.” Thus respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we do not find any merits in the ground raised by the department and the same is dismissed. 39. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the department are partly allowed Order pronounced on this 02nd day of November, 2012.
........
|
