|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 662 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reason to 4. As regards questions B & E are concerned, counsel for the revenue states that similar questions raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.972 of 2009 has been rejected by this Court on 5th March, 2012. Hence question B & E cannot be entertained. 5. As regards questions C & D are concerned, counsel for the revenue states that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the assessee's own case for assessment year AY 1986-87 and the said decision has been accepted. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain questions C & D. 6. As regards question F is concerned, counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.1123 of 2009 has been rejected by this Court on 5th March, 2012. Hence question F cannot be entertained. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1104 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... iginal characteristics of corrugated sheets. Therefore, there is no scope to take a different view than what has been stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as confirmed by the Tribunal. Such determination came to be made by both the authorities based on the facts placed before them and with reference to which, we do not find any serious legal lacuna, there is no scope to interfere with the same, inasmuch as there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved. " 14. Since all the conditions laid down under the relevant provisions have been complied with, therefore, we are of the view that the action of the authorities below in not allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 801B is unwarranted and uncalled for. As such, while accepting the appeal of the assessee, we direct to grant deduction u/s 801B of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 15. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 17.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1103 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the excise duty forms part of the turnover and therefore it has to be included while valuing the closing stock. This principle does not admit of any doubt. But on the facts of the present case, it has no application for the simple reason that the Tribunal has found that the value of opening stock of raw material was disclosed after excluding the value of the excise duty and, therefore, the assessee was justified in not including the amount of excise duty while valuing the closing stock of raw materials. 5. The Tribunal was of the view that if the value of the excise duty has to be included in the closing stock then the value of excise duty has also to be included in the opening stock and in that event there would be no difference in the result of the value of the opening and closing stock. 6. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal and do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1102 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... B in the appeal of the assessee and ground no.5 in the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 18. Ground No.2 in the appeal of the assessee relates to disallowance of ₹ 526 towards interest on late payment of TDS. The learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, treating the interest penal in nature. The learned AR on behalf of the assessee did not make any submissions on this ground . In this situation, keeping in view the smallness of the amount, ground no.2 in the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. 19.. Ground No.1 in the appeal of the Revenue being general in nature, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.6 in the appeal of the Revenue or ground no.4 in the appeal of the assessee, all these grounds are dismissed. 20. No other submission or argument was made before us. In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2012 (12) TMI 1101 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... T.A.T., Agra Bench and in the light of that we direct the CIT to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act and grant approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act and for grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed 10. In respect of ITA No.417/Agr/2012 in the case of Rudraksh Charitable Trust, since the facts in this case are also identical as discussed above in ITA Nos.365 & 366/Agr/2012, we follow the same and in the light of that the CIT is directed to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act. Thus, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed. 11. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1100 - ITAT JODHPUR
Eligibility to deduction u/ 80IB - subsequent claim - Held that:- Deduction u/s 80IB is available for ten consecutive assessment years and the assessee claimed the deduction first time for the assessment year 2004-05, therefore, the benefit was available to the assessee for the year under consideration when nothing was brought on record to substantiate that there was change in the activities and nature of the work of the assessee for the year under consideration vis-a-vis the preceding year i.e. 2004-05.
Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act for the assessment year 2004-05 and there is no change in the facts for the assessment year under consideration as well as in the activities of the assessee as compared to the said earlier year, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1099 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... liance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) in which it has been held that penalty which is the result of quasi criminal proceeding will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Tribunal noted that there was no deliberate defiance of law on the part of the assessee. In this case, the Tribunal accordingly deleted the penalty. Facts in the present case are identical as penalty has been levied in an identical manner for the same default on 20.10.2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in its order dated 9.5.2012 in ITA Nos.8656 to 8658/M/11 and in ITA Nos.8660 to 8661/M/11, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1098 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ommissioner of Income Tax, 219 ITR 214 it was held that the High Court can even call for supplementary statement of the case. 13. The question as to whether the findings of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6874 of 2000 decided on 9th October, 2001 were subject matter of consideration in WTR No.95 of 1991, which was also pending and was decided on 1.5.2007 between the same parties, when the Supreme Court held on 9th October, 2001, that fraud was played by rectification of the trust deed by altering the object of the trust, this Court had considered the question as to whether the directions of the Apex Court that its observation will not affect the assessment proceedings that have become final and held that the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18.7.1996 dismissing the special leave petition against the order of the Settlement Commission will be binding on the High Court. 14. The questions of law are thus decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s. 271AAA - undisclosed income during the course of search - Held that:- when undisclosed income admitted by the assessee has been offered for tax in the return of income and the tax thereof duly paid, penalty cannot be levied - assessee made disclosure of ₹ 95 lacs in respect of unexplained jewellery, unexplained cash and on-money payment for Akola land during the course of search which has been accepted by the A.O. during the assessment proceeding - that all the tax including interest had been paid by the appellant - thus penalty cannot be levied by AO u/s 271AA - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1095 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... on of expenses u/s 57 of the I.T. Act out of “Incidental Expenditure Pending Capitalisation” which are incurred for earning income held to be taxed under other sources. 6 In event, if it is held that the Appellant has not commenced its business, receipts in form of Tender fees, rent of Nigam’s residential building, income on investments/Bank Deposits, other Misc. Receipts and Income on Deposits should be treated as receipts inextricably linked to the project and hence the same ought to have been set-off against project cost.” 22. In terms of the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) and as we have already dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1466/Ahd/2007, hence, these grounds of assessee’s CO are also dismissed. 23. In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed. 24. In combined result, all the appeals of Revenue and that of assessee’s COs are dismissed as indicated above.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1094 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... earned CIT(Appeals) at 6 of total turnover and restore the income of the assessee to 4 of the total turnover of ₹ 7,52,66,405 viz. at ₹ 28,35,121 for Assessment Year 2007-08 and at ₹ 1,72,010 for Assessment Year 2008- 09 as per the declaration made under section 132(4) of the Act by letter dt.18.3.2009. It is ordered accordingly. 12.0 In the grounds of appeal at S.No.4, the assessee has denied itself liable to be charged interest under sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. In view of this, his action in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest is held to be in order. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 13. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 are allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1092 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Assessing Officer for his comments. In the remand report of the Assessing Officer to the CIT(A), he has only commented on the genuineness of the payment. The CIT(A) has also not examined whether tax has to be deducted with reference to commission payments. In such a situation, the issue whether TDS has to be deducted under section 194H of the Act and whether such commission is disallowable by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise out of the order of the first appellate authority. Since the issue of TDS does not arise out of CIT(A)’’s order, the same cannot be considered by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal’s power is limited to the subject matter of appeal before it. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.104/Bang/2011 dated 20/12/2011 which warrants our interference under section 254(2) of the Act. 11. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the department is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessee assessed u/s 44BB Or under section 44DA - Held that:- The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 in both the sections, cannot have the effect of altering or effacing the fundamental nature of both the provisions or their respective spheres of operation or to take away the separate identity of Section 44BB. We do not, therefore, see how these amendments can assist the Revenue's contention in the present case, put forward by the learned Senior Standing Counsel. We, therefore, agree with the AAR that in the present case the profits shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB of the Act and not section 44DA.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1090 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... /s 254 of the I.T. Act. Following this ratio, we are satisfied that when the appellate authority including the ld. CIT(A), entertains a new claim as such, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd supra does not impinge his power to entertain the claim for deduction otherwise than by filing revised return before the assessing authority. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error in entertaining the claim for deduction made before him as such.” 4. In the other cases also, the facts are identical except for the figure of receipts income and expenditure. 5. We have found that the issues involved in all these appeals stand squarely covered by the Jodhpur Bench decision supra rendered in ITA No. 385/JU/2009. 6. Accordingly, by respectfully following the above Tribunal order, we allow all these appeals. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 04th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1089 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition of unexplained investment - Delivery of possession of land - Held that - Assessee had given the possession of land in February-2009 to the purchaser and the purchaser could enjoy the fruits of property only after that date - the seller may retain the deed pending payment of price and in that case there is no transfer until the price is paid and the deed is delivered - Hence the assessee has rightly treated the transfer of land in AY 2009-10 and therefore the AO was not right in taxing the income on sale of land in AY 2008-09 - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t created will be eligible for grant of depreciation. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has also upheld that in case in the earlier year the expenditure incurred is more than the income then such excess expenditure or deficit has to be considered as application of income in the subsequent year for the purpose of considering the application of income. The ld. DR has pointed out that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (supra) has been considered and not followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. But being the Jurisdictional High Court the judgment, the Tribunal is bound by the said judgment and accordingly we allow both the grounds in favour of the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (12) TMI 1086 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Deduction under section 80IC - Held that:- CIT(A) was right in allowing deduction under section 80IC of the Act @ 100% of the profits and gains from manufacturing, including sale of ‘Raddi’.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1085 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Remission or cessation of the trade liability standing - addition u/s 41 - Held that:- It is based on factual matrix of the matter and the liability in the end of the year if not proved can certainly be added u/s 41(1) of the Act but it is still left open for the assessing authority to examine and opportunity is available before the assessing authority to produce the creditor and if unable to give the exact address, it will be open for the assessing authority to add back the same as per law. We do not find any substantial question of law arises in the facts & circumstances of the case which may require any consideration.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1081 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment -Whether AO not applied the mind and simply acted upon the information given by the ADI(Inv). Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee filed return of income on 28.7.1987 in the office of the Income-tax Circle-II Kanpur. The re-assessment proceeding for the Assessment Year 1987-88 was initiated in 1997-98 and in between the period of 10 years the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer might have changed. The figure furnished in the return filed for the Assessment Year 1987-88 were acted upon even though the loans/other amounts said to have been stated in the return has been added.
Tribunal is perfectly justified in quashing the order of reassessment proceedings as the action was mechanical in nature and without ascertaining as to whether the assessee had disclosed the factum of purchase of plot and cost of construction in the original return.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1079 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ause 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA) made as per the provisions of sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO has pointed out that the assessee has not created any Provision for bad and doubtful debts as mandated by sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Hence, he disallowed the above said claim and the same was upheld by the Ld CIT(A). 6. We have carefully gone through sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The deduction under that section is allowed in respect of "any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee". Hence, the condition for allowing any deduction is the "creation of any provision for bad and doubtful debts", which can only be created in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the sum of ₹ 32,72,731/- without making any provision as stated in sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, we are of the view that the tax authorities are justified in disallowing the same. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
........
|
