|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1062 - ITAT PUNE
Denial of exemption under s. 11 on the ground that same should have been claimed exempt under s. 10(23C) - Held that:- When the law permits the assessee to claim exemption under s. 10(23C) or s. 11, the choice should be left to the assessee and the Department cannot force the assessee to adopt only a particular provision. Since in the instant case the assessee has been granted registration under s. 12A which has not been cancelled and is still in force for the impugned assessment year and since the assessee was granted the benefit of exemption under s. 11 in the past years under scrutiny assessments and no objection was raised by the Revenue for such exemption under s. 11, therefore following rule of consistency the learned CIT(A) should have allowed exemption under s. 11 and the learned CIT(A) in our opinion is not justified in holding that the assessee should have claimed exemption under s. 10(23C). The various decisions relied on by the learned CIT(A), in our opinion, are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the assessee can claim exemption under s. 11 if it fulfils the other conditions prescribed under the said section. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
Considering the fact that the Revenue had no objection in the past for holding the shares of the bank during the tenure of loan utilised by the assessee trust and considering the fact that the assessee trust is still enjoying overdraft facilities from the bank we are of the considered opinion that there is no violation of provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(l)(d) on account of holding the shares of the bank. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed.
Donations received through issue of coupons as revenue receipts - Held that:- Since in the preceding paras we have held that there is no violation of provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(l)(d) and since the donations are treated as revenue receipts therefore it does not make any difference. We, therefore, hold that exemption under s. 11 is allowable on such coupon donations. The grounds by the assessee are decided accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1061 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver and stay of proceedings - CENVAT credit - relevant invoices were not issued to the insurance company but to the vehicle owners - Held that: - the stay orders produced by the learned consultant for the appellant found to have presented a precedent to be followed - waiver and stay granted.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1060 - ITAT MUMBAI
Transfer pricing adjustment on account of provisions of technical services - selection of comparables - Held that:- Assessee received income on account of application research and technical services from its parent company, which are international transactions as defined u/s 92B, thus companies dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Exclusion of the comparables due to high profit margin or loss, we find that the action of the TPO excluding the two comparables on the ground that these companies are persistent loss making concluded merely on the basis of two years data and without going into the details whether the loss is because of factors as prescribed under Rule 10B(2) r.w. sub rule (3) is not justified.
Disallowance in respect of global support service charges - Held that:- There is no dispute that the agreement between the parties was entered into during the year relevant to assessment under consideration and the debit note in respect of the expenses was also received during the year under consideration therefore, the expenditure has been crystallised during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by considering both the AYs . Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A),
-
2012 (12) TMI 1059 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... instruments as may be declared by the Central Government to be securities; and (iii) rights or interest in securities;" 16. Thus, it is evident that mutual funds are outside the ambit of the term 'securities'. In the present case, admittedly the assessee was agent of post office schemes, PPF, RBI Bonds, LIC, Mutual Funds etc. and, therefore, the commission paid by it to other persons whose services were taken for earning commission was also outside the purview of provisions of section 194H. The definition uses the term "in relation to" which clearly implies that whenever any commission or brokerage is paid in relation to securities then it would be outside the ambit of section 194H. Admittedly, the assessee had paid sub-brokerage in relation to securities (mutual fund) and, therefore, it was outside the ambit of section 194H. We, therefore, do not find any reason with the order of ld. CIT(A). 17. In the result, the Department's appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1058 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y remedy exists. At the same time, in view of the fact that the petitioner withdrew the appeals, interest of justice would lie on petitioner to approach the Tribunal either with a fresh appeal or with application for revival of the withdrawn appeals within a month. Since the petitioner has enjoyed an interim order staying the demands made pursuant to revisional order, it would further be in the interest of justice that the said interim order subsists and binds the authorities till the appeal is filed; in the event of the appeal being filed and an application being moved for an appropriate interim order in accordance with law, the Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the same on merits and as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of on these above terms. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of either the appeal or the interim order in respect of the revisional order in question. Order dasti.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 11.27 crores is to be considered as short-term capital loss on the sale of securities which is eligible for adjustment against short-term capital gains arising from the sale of shares.” 9. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, we hold that the income arising from the transaction in derivatives by the assessee, being FII, cannot be treated as business profit or loss but the same has to be capital gain or loss. 10. Since we have decided the nature of transaction and treatment of the same as capital gain or loss in favour of the assessee, then we do not propose to go into the alternative plea of the assessee regarding thrusting upon the provisions of the Treaty and putting the assessee in disadvantageous position. 11. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of December,2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1056 - ITAT BANGALORE
Claim of deduction u/s 80IB (10) - Held that:- This issue is remitted back to the file of the AO with a specific direction to look into the merits of the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 80IB (10) of the Act afresh:
(i) Whether the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause, as attributed by it in its affidavits (above), in furnishing its return of income belatedly? &
(ii) Whether the assessee has satisfied the other conditions stipulated in s. 80-IB of the Act to determine the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1055 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s SLP No. 33982/2012 and the same was dismissed on 23rd November, 2012. Consequently, order of the Tribunal is merged with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court granted one week time from 22nd November, 2012 to comply with the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 2. In view of the above, Tribunal being sub-ordinate Court has no power to pass any other order at this stage but to carry out the direction of the Apex Court. It is, therefore, not possible to entertain Misc. application of the appellant which has been registered as Misc. application No. 4866/2012. Consequently, that is dismissed. 3. Notice is hereby issued to the appellant to show cause as to why its appeal should not be dismissed on 24.12.2012 for failure to carry out direction of Hon ble Supreme Court. The appellant may appear either in person or through its authorized representative to lead defence against the show cause notice. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1054 - ITAT COCHIN
Entitled to deduction u/s 54F - capital gain earned on sale of a property - Held that:- Time limit for the purpose of making investment in Capital Gains Account scheme may also be taken as the time limit prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act. The assessment year under consideration, being assessment year 2005-06, the limitation would expire on 31.3.2007. The compliance of the provisions of sec. 54F (4) should be examined accordingly.
Both the tax authorities have stated that the “agreement for construction” was signed on 04.07.2007. The assessee has filed a copy of the “Construction agreement” before us and the same is found to have been executed on 22-03-2006. Thus, there is an apparent contradiction between the observations made by the tax authorities and the document produced before us. In clause (1) of the agreement filed before us (page 3), it is stated that the developers agree to deliver the Schedule ‘B’ Apartment (flat bearing no. B-1- 2086) by the end of August 2006 (subject to clause (13)). If this fact is true, it is confusing as to how the tax authorities have mentioned the date of construction agreement as 04.7.2007. Both the parties did not offer any explanation about this contradiction. The assessee did not furnish a copy of conveyance deed dated 04.07.2007 also before us and hence we did not have the benefit of examining the same.
This factual aspect requires verification, even though it appears that it may not have any effect on the eligibility of deduction u/s 54F in view of the view expressed by us in the preceding paragraph. However, the Tribunal, being a fact finding authority cannot allow the confusion to continue as it is.
The facts prevailing in the instant case require examination at the end of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the matter afresh and decide the issue in the light of discussions made supra. The assessee is free to file any other document/explanation in support of its claim u/s 54F of the Act.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1053 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... aid stay order, we find it so. Accordingly, we find that in this case also the appellant has deposited 25 of the amount of duty liability which has been confirmed by the lower authorities on direction of the first appellate authority. We consider this amount as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal. Application for waiver of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. Registry is directed to link this appeal with appeal Nos. E/943 of 2011 and E/795 of 2011. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1052 - ITAT COCHIN
Refusal for registration u/s 12AA - whether conducting coaching classes for the students would fall within the meaning of "education" u/s 2(15) - Held that - education is processing of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling - mere coaching classes may provide some kind of knowledge to the students but that kind of knowledge through coaching classes cannot fall within the meaning of "education" - and hence cannot be construed as charitable activity - the taxpayer is conducting coaching classes - and is not eligible for registration u/s 12AA - Decided against the assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1051 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant accordingly gets a relief of ₹ 817962/-.” 13. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that it is the contention of the assessee on this issue that the stock at the time of survey was valued at MRP. If the necessary valuation is done by applying the average purchase cost the same would not result any discrepancy in stock. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has correctly observed that it would be reasonable to allow 20 discount on the MRP value. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has taken a correct view of the matter which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1050 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ssee has realized from the sale of C-ore to M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd more than what is recorded in the assessee's books of account. In this view of the matter, the addition made on account of sales to M/s. Kalyani Steels Ltd below market rate, in our considered opinion is not founded on sound and accepted accounting and legal principles and is therefore liable to be deleted. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition of ₹ 15,51,45,117. The grounds at S.Nos.2 and 3 raised by revenue are accordingly dismissed”. 5.7 In view of the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 47,97,19,585/- and ₹ 2,26,03,642/-. 6. In the result, the department’s appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced on the 18th day of December, 2012 at Bangalore.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1049 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Topman Exports (supra), only profit on sale of DEPB should be considered for the purpose of exclusion form business profit for computing deduction allowable to the assessee u/s.80HHC and for the computation of profit on sale of DEPB, face value of DEPB is to be considered as costs of DEPB. We, therefore, rectify this apparent mistake in the impugned tribunal order and hold that this issue should go back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision as per this judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Topman Exports (supra).” 3. In the like manner, we hereby hold that the issue is now required to be decided by the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the ground in question is set aside for re-adjudication as per law by the Assessing Officer. 4. In the result, this miscellaneous application stands allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1048 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ustified though it will be deductible from the business income of the company and not from the short term capital gain. The Assessing Officer shall recomputed the income of assessee after giving effect to this order as above and will allow the commission expenditure of Rs. .20,61,266/- from business income. Hence, ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 17. As regards disallowance of Rs. .1,81,430/- on account of 1/10th of expenses, we are of the opinion that since the Assessing Officer has disallowed the amount merely on estimate basis and relying upon the contention of the assessee that most of the staff was engaged in sale and purchase of shares is not justified. Specifically keeping in view the fact that we have held the income from capital gain and not from business. In view of the above, ground No.4 is also allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 19. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1047 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A - interest expense and management expense - whether expense to be disallowed in relation to exempt income - Held that:- administrative and other expenses are fixed irrespective of the fact whether or not tax free income is earned and therefore, these expenses cannot said to be relatable to exempt income - also there is nothing on record brought out by the AO that the assessee has actually incurred any expenditure in relation to the exempt income - the addition of ₹ 7.05 crores being the proportionate disallowance of interest expenses is deleted - decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1046 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... aring both sides, we find that the fee of ₹ 50,000/- paid a professional fee to its auditors falls u/s 194J. TDS has been deducted in Assessment year 2005-06 but the assessee is following Mercantile System of Accounting. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) is fair enough and has taken a just decision by directing the A.O. to allow this in Assessment year 2006-07. There is no fallacy in this finding of the ld. CIT(A), who has upheld the addition in this Assessment year. 30. Facts and circumstances of second ground raised in this appeal are similar to Ground No 3. raised in Assessment year 2005-06. Except the amounts, all facts of the parties are similar. Therefore, with similar reasoning, we dismiss this ground of appeal. 31. Third ground is decided in same manner as it si decided in Assessment year 2005-06 as above. 32. Accordingly, this appeal in dismissed. 33. In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 14.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1045 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance for provision for privilege leave encashment - Held that - eave encashment is ascertained liability and has been provided on the basis of an actuarial valuation - assessee’s claim for deduction of the provision for privilege leave encashment is not a contingent liability and is to be allowed - Decided in favor of assessee
Disallowance of depreciation on securities - whether investment constitutes stock-in-trade or a capital asset - Held that - whether a particular investment in any security is in the nature of stock-in-trade or otherwise is a question which has to be examined in each case having regard to the nature of transactions, manner of holding - Matter remanded back
-
2012 (12) TMI 1044 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal’s decision, we dismiss this issue of Revenue’s appeal. The revenue had not distinguished the findings of Coordinate Bench given for earlier year when transactions are same and depreciation claimed on written down the value of the same assets on sale and lease back transaction, then, we have to follow the earlier decision otherwise material facts are different. Thus, we are of considered view that by following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in earlier year, we allow the appeal of the assessee in his favour and dismiss the revenue’s appeal on these grounds. 17. Assessee’s ground nos. 6 for A.Y. 05-06 & ground no.4 for A.Y. 06-07 are against charging of interest u/s.234B, 234C & 234D are consequential to the above finding. Therefore, the A.O. is directed to take decision as per law. 18. In the result, the Assessee & Revenue’s appeals for both assessment years are partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 28.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI
Transactions on sale of shares - whether business income or short term capital gain - Held that:- assessee has held the shares of various companies as investments only - mere fact that some shares have been held for less than 30 days will not by itself make the appellant a trader - assessee has intention of enjoying the appreciation in value of shares and merely that some shares have been sold in less than 1 year, cannot lead to conclusion that he had a different intention in respect of such shares - assessee has used his own funds for the purchase of shares and no borrowed fund was used by the assessee - it is relevant to see the intention of the assessee as to whether the activity amounts to trading activity or investment activity - thus the intention of the assessee is to hold as investment - also volume of transactions would not alter the nature of transaction from investment to trading hence the profits are to be shown as short term capital gains - Decided in favor of assessee
............
|
