|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1205 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Kumar, Adv., Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1204 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... tive from 1-4-2005. Consequently, any payment of tax deducted at source during previous year relevant to and from A.Y. 2005-06 can be made to the Government on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. If the payments are made as aforesaid, then no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Admittedly, in the present case the assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.” 8. Following the aforesaid precedent, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Resultantly, this Ground of Appeal raised by the Revenue is also dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 20th November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1200 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nd to decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct accordingly. ITA No.3289/Ahd/2011 (Penalty appeal) 14. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is regarding validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. We have heard both the parties. In view of our decision setting aside the issue of addition on account of un-proved creditors under Section 68 to the file of the AO for de novo decision, we hold that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be sustained and is accordingly cancelled. However, the AO shall be at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceedings, if so required, as per the law at the time of assessment to be framed by the AO in accordance with decision of the Tribunal. We direct accordingly. 16. In the result, ITA No.405/Ahd/2009 is partly allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.3289/Ahd/2011 is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1199 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nableness. In the circumstances of the case, though considering the amount of commission payments claimed, certain amount of disallowance is certainly warranted, we find that the ad-hoc disallowance made by the assessing officer is on a higher side. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that sustenance of ad-hoc disallowance to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly modify the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and sustain ad-hoc disallowance made by the assessing officer only to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs. Assessee's grounds on this issue are partly allowed." 11. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, the CIT is justified in sustaining the disallowance at ₹ 1,84,145. This ground is dismissed. 12. In the result, ITA No. 692/Hyd/2011 - Allowed. ITA No. 499/Hyd/2011 - Dismissed ITA No. 1420/Hyd/2011- Partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1198 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... indings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the material available on record and surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee have been duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The transactions though apparent were held to be not real ones. May be the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence." 7. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision has been applied by this court in the case of Smt. Kamla Agrawal (Supra). Respectfully following the decision of this Court in case of Smt. Kamla Agrawal (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that so far as the order passed by the Tribunal on the gift is concerned , it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1197 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee has no connection with these demand drafts/pay orders and no income is assessable in the hands of the assessee on this count. Now, the only issue to be decided by us is whether the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to teat 5 of the amount of demand draft/pay orders as commission income of the assessee is reasonable or not. In our considered opinion, 5 commission in this type of activity is very much on higher side and we are of the considered opinion that 1 commission income will meet the ends of justice and accordingly, we direct the A.O. to restrict the addition in the hands of the assessee to the extent of 1 of the amount of demand drafts/pay orders in each of the four years as against 5 commission as directed by Ld. CIT(A). This ground is partly allowed in all the four years. 10. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed in terms indicated above. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1196 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0, wherein, the Tribunal followed the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd vs. ACIT passed on 14.3.2012, holding that in the case of finance lease depreciation is not admissible to the lessor who is simply a nominal and symbolic owner of the asset, whereas the real owner who bears all the risks and rewards incidental to the ownership is the lessee. It has thus been held that it is only the lessee who is the actual and real owner of the asset in case of a finance lease, who is eventually entitled to depreciation and not the lessor. Copy of the decision of ITAT dt.9.5.2012 is placed on record. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case (supra), we reject the ground of appeal taken by assessee by upholding the orders of ld CIT(A) for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 3. In the result, both appeals filed by assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 12th November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1195 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... that the salary for all the employees increased in the current assessment year, except for one employee, namely, Sowmya. It is not clear whether she has left the service of the assessee company during the current assessment year which had resulted in reduction in her salary. The total salary outgoing for the current assessment year is lower than the assessment year 2006-07 only on account that many of the employees had left the services during the current assessment year and the assessee company had not filled the vacancies immediately. In the light of the above reasoning, we are of the view that disallowance of remuneration paid to the directors on the facts of this case is not justified and accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the entire salary paid to the directors. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1193 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... f the facts of the case, considering the submissions of the assessee and the citations referred to by the as before him, has rightly deleted the penalty and we find no justification to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty in the matter in the absence of any material produced by the learned DR to controvert the same. We confirm his findings. There is no merit in the ground of appeal of the Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed.” Since the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has taken a view in similar facts and circumstances respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of M/s Lucky Star International (supra) in ITA No.1041/Ahd/2010 we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. In this view of this matter, appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1192 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as deduction. For this purpose we place reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Rasi Mills (P.) Ltd. 2009 315 ITR 114. We also rely on the judgment of jurisdictional of High Court in the case of CIT v. Sarvaraya Textiles 2011 332 ITR 553 (AP) wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by the assessee in replacement of fixed assets did not amount to current repairs. Accordingly on merit also this issue is decided against the assessee. 38. Regarding the second issue that is prior period expenses, as demonstrated by the CIT in his order in para 4.2 and para 4.2.1, there is no doubt that this expenditure is prior period expenditure and not relating to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee being following mercantile system of accounting cannot claim this expenditure for the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly this ground is also decided against the assessee. 39. In the result, assessee appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1189 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ning the dividend income. In the case of dealer in shares and securities the primary object and intention for acquisition of the shares is to earn profit on trading of shares. The income on sale and purchase of the shares of a dealer is chargeable to tax. Therefore, if the said activity of purchase and sale also incidentally yields some dividend income on the shares held by him as stock in trade such dividend income is not intended at the time of purchase of such shares and accordingly there is no live connection between the expenditure incurred and dividend income. 13. Considering the factual positioning in the present case in light of the decisions of High Court and Tribunal, we are of the view that no disallowance of interest is called for in the present case. We therefore direct the deletion of the disallowance made by the A.O. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 11- 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1188 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ning the dividend income. In the case of dealer in shares and securities the primary object and intention for acquisition of the shares is to earn profit on trading of shares. The income on sale and purchase of the shares of a dealer is chargeable to tax. Therefore, if the said activity of purchase and sale also incidentally yields some dividend income on the shares held by him as stock in trade such dividend income is not intended at the time of purchase of such shares and accordingly there is no live connection between the expenditure incurred and dividend income. 13. Considering the factual positioning in the present case in light of the decisions of High Court and Tribunal, we are of the view that no disallowance of interest is called for in the present case. We therefore direct the deletion of the disallowance made by the A.O. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 11- 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1187 - ITAT AGRA
Rejection of application for grant of registration u/s 12AA - rejection of application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) - Held that - CIT did not act according to law and provisions of section 12AA & 80G of the Act. CIT Agra has not conducted any enquiry into the matter in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee institution or fund;and the order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the impugned order is passed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of filing of application which violated section 12AA of the Act.
The orders of CIT for refusal of registration under section 12AA of the Act and refusal of approval under section 80G of the Act was set aside. - CIT directed to grant registration under section 12AA and renewal of approval under section 80G(5)(vi) - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1184 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... d 30th April 2012, but no cognizance of Form No.8 was taken. 2. We have heard the parties. On the perusal of the appeal folder, we find that the declaration filed by the assessee u/s. 158A(1) in Form No. 8 is on record. It appears that by oversight, the said declaration remained to be considered by the Bench when both the appeals were disposed off. In our opinion, this is the mistake apparent on the face of the record. Ld. D.R. has no objection for recalling said order. We, accordingly, recall the orders in both the A.Ys. i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 in ITA No.1087 and 1088/PN/2010 respectively dated 30th April 2012. Both the appeals are fixed for hearing on 07 December 2012. No separate notice of the hearing will be issued to the parties as the date of hearing is pronounced in the open Court in presence of both the parties. 3. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications are allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court after conclusion of hearing on 09/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1182 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... issue of adjustment of exempt income/loss against the income from other sources is covered against the assessee by the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.S. Thiagarajan (supra). We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment “The provisions of ss.70 and 71 relating to set off of loss from one head against income from another contemplate loss from a source, the income from which is liable to tax. If income from a source is altogether exempt from tax, loss from that source cannot be set off against income from a different source or income under a different head. Since the income is not taxable the loss incurred in such activity also could not be set off against income from other heads of income.” Respectfully following the above decision, Ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1181 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of profit derived from Banas-11 Dairy Expansion Plant has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of the assesses for Assessment Year 2004- 05, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. Since the Revenue has not pointed out as to how the decision of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench rendered in ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2006- 07 in assessee’s own case is not applicable on the facts of the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, respectfully, following the order of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench rendered in ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2009 in assessee’s own case relating to the assessment year 2006-2007, we do not find any infirmity into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), consequently, this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1180 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed the rival submissions and have perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A). We find that the issue of deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the Act is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in assessee’s own case for immediately preceding assessment year 2004-05 (supra) and also for subsequent assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 (supra). The facts of the case of the assessee for relevant assessment year 2005-06 in appeal before us being similar to the facts of the case of the assessee in immediately preceding year as well as two succeeding years and we, being in agreement with the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra for preceding assessment year 2004-05 as well as succeeding assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 08, decide the issue in favour of the assessee and ground No.1 of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1178 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld not be granted as a matter of course. However, if some plausible explanation is rendered showing that the assessee though intended to pursue the appeal, was prevented from doing so for good and sufficient reasons, ordinarily the Courts prefer to decide the cause on merits rather than on technical questions. 7. Be that as it may,in the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have taken into account the affidavit of the office boy while was presented by the appellant after the hearing was over. Minor discrepancy in the name i.e. Sanjay or Sanjeev should not be fatal to the main cause. 8. Under the circumstances, question is answered in favour of the appellant. Proceedings are remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue after taking into account the affidavit of the concerned person. 9. Considering the extent of delay, the appellant shall deposit cost of ₹ 5,000/- with the State Legal Service Authority. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1175 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ent of aggregate payment to ‘single party’ is w.e.f. A.Y. 09-10. In the case of appellant there is no single payment or aggregate payment to single person of cash of ₹ 20,000 & above to a person and therefore A.O’s action of invoking section 40A(3) of the Act is not sustainable. He is directed to allow such expenditure and delete the addition. The appellant gets relief of Rs.l,97,000/-.” 11. Since ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Leader Transport & Co. Vs. ITO 6 ITR (TRIB) 229 AHD and Hon’ble Orissa High Court judgement in the case of M/s Aloo Supply co. 121 ITR 680 holding that each single payment should be above ₹ 20,000/- in cash for the applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Act, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 23.11.2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1174 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether expenditure is revenue or capital in nature - current repairs - replacement of broken A.C. Sheets and replacement of factory wall plaster etc. - Held that:- All the expenses were made after a period of 3-4 years but were in the nature of current repairs and were chargeable as revenue expenditure. Also the expenditure so incurred was essentially for repair of building/machinery and by incurring these expenditure neither capacity nor building was extended nor the machinery did undergo any change. Thus the findings recorded do not suffer from any legal infirmity - Decided in favor of the assessee.
........
|
