|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 740 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit denied - Non mentioning or incorrect address of the appellants on the invoices - Held that:- As Services availed were for sales promotion and those were rightly availed by appellant, distantly located units of the appellant availed the benefit of cenvat credit in a distributed fashion which is otherwise guarded by Revenue by a centralised registration process. No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant but once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible - Cenvat Credit allowed - in favour of assessee.
Transportation of staff by bus - Held that:- In absence of evidence whether Transport facility is used either for manufacture or in relation to manufacture or providing output service, thus in absence of nexus and integrity, the appellant fails to succeed - Cenvat Credit disallowed - against assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 739 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE - denial of exemption as goods selling under brand name belonging to another person - whether just by adding the word "Dugar" before the word "Tetenal" and using the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" on the goods would disentitle the respondent company for the benefit of SSI exemption - Held that:- As decided in CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that use of part of brand name or trade name of another person, so long as it indicates a connection in the course of trade, would be sufficient to disentitle the person for the SSI exemption.
As it is not disputed that the word "Tetenal" used along with the "Dugar" on the goods manufactured by the respondent company is the brand name of M/s. Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany, with whom the respondent had technical collaboration and as such, the word "Tetenal" indicates a connection in the course of trade with M/s.Tetenal Vertribs GmBH, Germany. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order extending the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE to the respondent company in respect of the goods cleared with the brand name "Dugar Tetenal" is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - in favour of Revenue.
-
2012 (12) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Rectification of mistake - Held that:- There is no dispute of availment of credit of duty paid by the current appellant, by their sister unit to whom the goods were cleared. The assessee having paid the duty liability before issuance of Show Cause Notice and there being no malafide attached to such under-valuation, the interest liability confirmed by the lower authorities needs to be set aside - final Order needs rectification - nin favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 737 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Royalty and fees for technical services - whether taxable on receipt basis ? - Held that:- As under Article IIXA of the DTA Treaty with the Federal Germany Republic as per Notification dated 26th August 1985 the assessment of royalty or any fees for technical services should be made in the year in which the amounts are received and not otherwise - ITAT in holding that royalty and fees for technical services should be taxed on receipt basis cannot be faulted - in favour of assessee.
Levy of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- As decided in DIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Versus NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC [2009 (1) TMI 174 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] when a duty is cast on the payer to pay the tax at source, on failure, no interest can be imposed on the payee-assesses - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 736 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Good Transport Agency - demand of service tax - The appellant is engaged, in manufacturing Read Mix Concrete ("RMC" for short). They had hired "Transits Mixers", that is, vehicles specially designed for carryings RMC from place of manufacture to place of delivery of the goods. The vehicles were provided by the owners to the appellant for their use as per terms of a contract. The appellant paid consideration to the vehicle owners which involved certain payments on monthly basis and certain payments based on the number of kilometres run. Revenue demanded tax on the consideration paid by the appellant to the vehicle owners, considering it as a consideration for services of "Goods Transport Agency"
Held that:- The agreement does not demonstrate that the operator has any special rights or responsibility about the goods as is the case of goods entrusted to a Goods Transport Agency. This obviates the need to issue consignment notes which normally is a document of title for the goods when it is in the custody of the transporter. There is one clause to the effect that the operator will obtain proper receipts from customers after the goods are delivered. Thus by itself cannot make the contract to be that of "Goods Transport Agency" as defined in section 65 (50) (b) of Finance Act, 1994. When consignment notes are not issued by the operator they cannot be considered as a "Goods Transport Agency". The mere fact that the operator is doing activity of transportation cannot make the operator a "Goods Transport Agency". So the operators in this case cannot be considered as "Goods Transport Agencies".
This issue is already examined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.S. Lamba and Sons Versus State of Andhra Pradesh (2011 (1) TMI 1196 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT) though in the context of State Sales Tax. The Court has held that this type of contract is one for transfer of right to use the vehicle rather than for providing service of transportation - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 735 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit of Rs.3 Crores to hear the appeal on merits - Whether the word “roads” would include within it “runways” at airports - Held that:- Runways at the airports are species of the genus “road”. Therefore, the runways should also normally receive the same treatment as roads for service tax purpose. Prima facie the case of the appellant is a very arguable case. However, in the order of the Tribunal dated 30/7/2012 there is no consideration of the issue even for the purposes of taking a prima facie view.
Set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 30/7/2012 demanding, interest or penalty for pre deposit and direct the Tribunal to hear the appellant's appeal on merits as the amount involved in the appeal is over Rs.10 crores the Tribunal directed to hear the appellant's appeal on merits itself at the earliest within a period of three months from today.
-
2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Payment of service tax by using cenvat credit instead of cash - Held that:- As decided in CCE, CHANDIGARH Versus M/s NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD and Others [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] & para 2.4.2 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions shows that there is no legal bar to the utilisation of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax on the GTA services - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 733 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Jurisdiction power u/s 263 by CIT(A) - set off of unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward from Assessment Year 1998-99 - Held that:- Section 263 of the Income-tax Act seeks to remove the prejudice caused to the revenue by the erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. There is no enquiry by the AO whatsoever on the issue in dispute. He just accepted the claim of set off of earlier year unabsorbed depreciation in the assessment year under consideration. Being so, the CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s. 263.
Thus it is to be opined that subject matter of the revision is pending before the Special Bench for adjudication and the AO passed the assessment order without an iota of discussion on the issue of whatsoever as such the CIT exercised his powers u/s. 263 to revise the order of AO which was in conformity with the order of the Special Bench and invoking the provisions of section 263 is justified.
Set off of unabsorbed depreciation allowances carried forward from assessment year 1996-97 and 1998-99 against income relating to assessment year 2007-08 - This issue is covered against the assessee by the order of the Special Bench in the case of DCIT Versus Times Guaranty Ltd. [2010 (6) TMI 516 - ITAT, MUMBAI] wherein held that unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as applicable to assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and, therefore, assessee cannot claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000 under any head of income other than “income from business or profession” in assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 - issue is decided against the assessee.
when there are several decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts expressing contrary views, the Tribunal is free to choose to adopt that view which appeals to it. For this purpose, we place reliance on the order of the Special Bench in the case of Kanel Oil & Export Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT, (2009 (8) TMI 806 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C).
Settlement of dues with Stressed Assts Stabilisation Fund IDBI - Held that:- Perusuing the material on record & going through the impugned assessment order there is no discussion in the assessment order on the impugned issue. There is no enquiry on this issue. The order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as discussed in earlier paras of this order. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) confirmed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 732 - ITAT NEW DELHI
Capitalization of product improvement expenses - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- CIT (A) has rightly observed that the expenditure in question was incurred as a matter of routine, for the business and commercial expediency of the assessee’s business, i.e., consultancy business. The CIT (A) has also declared that the capitalization of such expenses in preceding years was for the period prior to the commencement of the assessee’s business. Right from the commencement of the business of the assessee, the expenses started being claimed as revenue, every year. The allowance of similar expenditure in the earlier as well as subsequent years, it is pertienent to note, was made in scrutiny assessments - CIT(A) placed reliance on the case laws CIT vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. [2011 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT] & Assam Bengal Cement Company Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal [1954 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] - no error in the order of the CIT (A) in this regard - against revenue.
Treatment of leased property improvement expenses as capital expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The detail of expenditure filed shows that as shown before the taxing authorities, the expenditure was incurred on networking, fire fighting, electricity cabling, flooring, tiling, sanitary partitions, etc. The premises on which the office of the assessee was situated was a rented premises taken by the assessee and the assessee was not an owner thereof. The expenditure, no doubt, was incurred in the ordinary course of business of the assessee. No addition whatsoever, was made to the structure on the rented premises. The assessee never got to acquire any new asset or advantage by expending the amount - thus CIT (A) rightly deleted the addition wrongly made by the Assessing Officer - against revenue.
Foreign Exchange loss - disallowance of claim by CIT(A) - Held that:- As decided in CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi versus M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT DELHI] oss on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation is an allowable business expenditure u/s 37 - rightly been contended on behalf of the assessee that current assets and liabilities in foreign exchange in accordance with the AS 11, are required to be revalued as per the rate applicable at the end of the year. Undoubtedly, forex revaluation has to be done every time. Therefore, CIT (A) clearly erred in upholding the disallowance wrongly made by the AO - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 731 - ITAT MUMBAI
Locational special revenues - whether in the nature of fees for technical services as per Article 13 of the DTAA between India and UK - Held that:- The nature of services has to be ascertained only after examination of the relevant record and the legal point, which has been settled by the various decisions is only on the point of 'making available' of technical know-how, knowledge, expertise etc. which is again to be seen from the facts that whether any technical service is made available or not. As in the absence of relevant material and particularly agreement between the parties under which the assessee has rendered the services and received the payment, it is not possible to determine the real nature of the activity carried out/services rendered by the assessee - remit the issue to file of CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after considering the relevant material in support of the facts.
Levy of interest u/s 234B/234C - Held that:- As decided in DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Versus NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC [2009 (1) TMI 174 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] when a duty is cast on the payer to pay the tax at source, on failure, no interest can be imposed on the assessee - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 730 - ITAT MUMBAI
Net interest and commission received from head office - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Following the precedent for assessment year 1997-98 wherein relying on the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. v. Dy. DIT (IT) [2012 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held that neither any interest/commission received by the Indian PE from HO/other overseas branches can be charged to tax, nor there can be any deduction towards interest/commission expenditure incurred by the assessee towards HO /overseas branches & restored the matter to the file of AO with a direction to exclude the such amount and also not to grant deduction in respect of interest/commission received from the overseas HO/branches.
Disallowance of broken period interest on PSU bonds - Held that:- The assessee switched over from one recognized method of valuation of bonds and securities to another recognized method in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration in respect of PSU bonds. Broken period interest which was hither to capitalized came to be considered as deduction in the year of purchase. This changed method has been undisputedly followed by the assessee consistently in subsequent years. Considering the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 1991-92, the Tribunal decided it in favour of the assessee by holding that interest paid on broken period was liable to be allowed as deduction against the interest received in respect of the broken period - in favour of assessee.
Interest on NOSTRO account - CIT(A) deleted charging of interest & enhancement to the tune of Rs. 27,31,95,602 u/s 14A - Held that:- Following the precedent for assessment year 1997-98 the interest of Rs. 3.98 crore on NOSTRO account is chargeable to tax and resultantly the disallowance u/s 14A made to the tune of Rs. 27.31 crore is deleted - grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue in this regard are allowed.
Taxability of income at the rate of 48% as applicable to non-resident company - Held that:- The assessee fairly admitted that this issue has been decided against the assessee in earlier years - The impugned order on this issue for the current year as well and dismiss this ground.
Interest received from branches on placement of overseas deposits - should it be charged to tax - Held that:- The interest received from branches should not be charged to tax as it is a transaction with self, the view has consistently been taken in earlier years but since the exact amount of interest received by the assessee from its HO/overseas branches is not emanating from record, AO is directed to find out such amount of interest received from HO/overseas branches and exclude it from the computation of total income - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of loss on revaluation of unmatured forward foreign exchange (Forex) Contracts - Held that:- As decided in DCIT Versus Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait [2010 (8) TMI 578 - ITAT, MUMBAI] the loss incurred by the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last day of the accounting year i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract, is allowable as deduction - AO directed to allow loss of Rs. 7.14 crore in this year and compute loss/profit on Forox contract maturing in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000 by considering the impact of allowing of loss of Rs. 7.14 crore - in favour of assessee.
Exemption of gross interest earned from tax free securities u/s 10(15) - Held that:- Exemption u/s 10(15) is to be allowed on gross interest and not on the net interest.
Disregard the refund while calculating the interest u/s 234B - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly considered the mandate of sections 234B and 234D. Obviously, the interest u/s 234B is required to be calculated on the basis of total income computed without considering the refund determined u/s 143(1).
Disallowance of interest earned from HO was lower as compared to interest paid for FCNR-B Deposit - Held that:- Simply because the assessee paid interest on domestic deposits at a little higher rate than that it received on FCNR-B Deposits, it cannot be said that the interest paid should be disallowed to that extent.
Write off of premium paid on purchase of securities amortised over the life of investments - Held that:- In agreement with the view canvassed by the CIT(A) as that when the assessee is purchasing securities as stock-in-trade, there can be no question of amortizing the premium paid for the purchase of securities over the life of such securities. The purchase price so paid has to be taken as such by disregarding the assessee's view point that the premium on purchase of securities should be amortized over the life of investment. To this extent the view taken by the CIT(A) approved with a little modification that not only when the securities are not only sold but also even when these get matured, income from then should be computed with reference to the cost of purchase of securities.
Deduction independent of the provisions of section 44C - CIT(A)deleted the expenses claimed by the assessee on account of HO expenses independent of the provisions of section 44C - Held that:- Facts and circumstances of this ground are similar to those prevailing in the earlier years in which it has been held that the deduction has to be allowed independent of the provisions of section 44C - if during the fresh examination, the AO finds that the expenses of Rs. 1.06 crore or any part thereof represent apportionment of HO expenses as per Explanation to section 44C, such allocated expenses will not be allowed as deduction independent of section 44C. To the extent the expenses are found to be exclusively incurred by HO for the assessee, they will not fall within the definition of HO expenses and accordingly allowed as deduction independent of section 44C. This ground is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (12) TMI 729 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Undisclosed Rental Income – CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- According to the rent agreement, if the figure of 10% increase is used, the rent receivable from 7.12.2006 onwards should have been Rs. 63,888/- p.m. Similarly, the rent receivable from 7th December, 2007onwards should have been Rs. 70,2777- as per the rent agreement.However, the assessee is only showing rental income of Rs. 55,000/- p.m. in the return of income - As per the agreement
actual rent receivable is to be ascertained with reference to the relevant clause of the Rent Agreement, as relied upon by the AO. The CIT(A) has not disputed the correctness of the said clause. Also the said agreement has been entered by the concerned party at will and voluntarily, therefore, there is no statutory bar u/s 23(1) to exclude the said express terms, for the purpose of enhancement of rent in the said Rent Agreement. Having regard to factual matrix of the case, documentary evidence in the form of Rent Agreement cannot be ignored and, hence, the findings of the CIT(A) are reversed and findings of the AO restored - in favour of revenue.
Subsidy receivable – Capital vs Revenue Receipts – Held that:- A bare perusal of the Office Memorandum issued by Govt. of India dated 07.01.2003, as reproduced above, clearly reveals the eligibility for such capital investment subsidy @ 15% of their investment in Plant & Machinery subject to ceiling of Rs.30 lacs. The subsidy is also avai lable to the existing units, on their substantial expansion - following case of CIT V Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) that subsidy for repayment of capital loan is capital receipt. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where main eligibility condition in scheme, under which assessee Sugar Mill was granted subsidy, was that subsidy must be utilized for repayment of loans taken by assessee to set-up new unit or for substantial expansion of existing unit. In such a situation, the subsidy is in the nature of capital receipt and not exigible to tax - in favour of assessee
Capitalization of Water and Electricity Expenses - Held that:- Copy of account, from which addition has been made, represents details of electricity expenses, which had already been transferred to pre-operative expenses under the head Fixed Assets and no deduction has been claimed in the Profit & Loss Account. Having regard to such contention of the assessee, duly supported by documentary evidence, CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of such transferred pre-operative expenses - no infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A), and hence, the same are upheld - against revenue.
-
2012 (12) TMI 728 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance of interest u/s 36 - There was a debit balance throughout the year and there was opening debit balance and even on closing of the year there was a debit balance - Assessee has in fact made purchases of Rs. 5.40 crores and even sales have been made at Rs. 3.10 crores – Held that:- As concluding from the fact of the case assessee had made regular business dealings and the amounts going into debit are on account of sales when the assessee was doing business with the sister concern then it is natural that some time account may be in debit. Addition deleted. In favour of assessee
Disallowance of expense u/s 14A – Expense incurred in relation to earn exempt income – Assessee has incurred interest expenses whereas income from investments was found to be exempt - Held that:- As the disallowance u/s 14A is based on Rule 8D which has been noted above was applicable during the year under consideration and which is in consonance with the decision of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Therefore, restore that of the AO by confirming the disallowance u/s 14A rule 8D of IT Rules is applicable in the year before us and disallowance has been worked out as per Rule 8D. Issue remand back to AO in favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 727 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Non deduction of TDS on interest accrued on FDRs - Interest charged u/s 201/201(1A) - Held that:- The Jammu Development Authority is in exempted category where the provisions of section 194(1) are not applicable. Also that exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) and as per notification No.3489 dated 22.10.1970 the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J & K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No.39 of the said notification thus uphold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest on FDRs of Jammu Development Authority with J & K Bank Ltd - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 726 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Deduction u/s 80IB - Central Excise Duty refund & Interest subsidy - Capital or revenue receipt - Held that:- Looking to the the incentives provided to the industrial units, in terms of the new industrial policy, for accelerated industrial development in the State which is certainly a purpose in the public interest, the incentives provided by the office memorandum and statutory notifications issued in this behalf, to the appellants-assessees, cannot be construed as mere production and trade incentives & by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of assesses alone - Following the decision of court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT and Another [2011 (1) TMI 394 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT] the receipt of Central Excise Duty Refund and interest subsidy to be treated as a ‘Capital Receipt’ as against its treatment as ‘Revenue receipt’ by the A.O and not liable to be taxed - Decided in the favour of the assessee.
Late deposit of PF and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Held that:- first appellate authority has passed a well reasoned order based on facts and materials available on record, which requires no interference at our level - ground of the Revenue dismissed.
Addition on account of late deposit of EPF u/s 36 and deduction u/s 80IB – Held that:- FAA has passed a well reasoned order based on facts and materials available on record, which requires no interference following the decision of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals [] which is squarely applicable to the facts of the issue in hand, this ground of the revenue is dismissed - this ground of the Revenue is also dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 725 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Deduction u/s 80IB - Central Excise Duty refund & Interest subsidy - Capital or revenue receipt - Held that:- Following the decision of court in case of Shree Balaji Alloys v. CIT and Another [2011 (1) TMI 394 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT] the receipt of Central Excise Duty Refund and interest subsidy to be treated as a ‘Capital Receipt’ as against its treatment as ‘Revenue receipt’ by the A.O - Decided in the favour of the assessee.
Transport Subsidy – Held that:- Transport subsidy is not derived from the activity of the industrial undertaking though it may be attributable to it and therefore, cannot be said to be treated as part of the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking - no deduction is available u/s 80IB on the amount of freight subsidy - order of A.O. is affirmed/confirmed.
Treating interest as income derived from industrial undertaking - Held that: - Following the decision of in case of M/s. Pandian Chemicals [2003 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] interest cannot be treated as income derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80IB – ground of assessee is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 724 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Long term capital gain – Purchase and sale of Property - whether for making profits or to use it for Residential purposes - Held that:- It is a residential house, which is a subject matter of long term capital gain u/s 54 and it is any other asset which is not a residential house which is a matter of capital gain u/s 54. There is no finding of the AO that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54F. It is also undisputed that the assessee was the owner of residential house/flat at Delhi at Vasant Kunj which was sold during the impugned year and capital gain was earned by the assessee which was invested by purchase of a residential house at Amritsar. These facts are coming in the order of the CIT(A) itself and as per statement of total income of the assessee it will be interest of justice, if the matter is setaside to the file of the CIT(A) who after considering the provision of section 54 instead the provisions of section 54F will decide the issue afresh.
Trading addition being difference between sundry debtors and the sales – Held that:- Books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. The assessee having filed all the copies of account of trade creditors as confirmed by the AO by issuing notice u/s 133(6) therefore, the genuineness of the trade creditors cannot be doubted - ground raised by revenue dismissed
Addition due to inadequate household withdrawals – Held that:- Assessee was living in a joint family and A.O. has not considered the withdrawals made by other members of the family, which were on record CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO on account of household withdrawals - CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition.
-
2012 (12) TMI 723 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Allocation of expenditure between the brokerage business and trading - Speculation Loss – Held that:- Upholding the allocation of expenditure between the two lines of business, only 5% of the expenditure be allocated against the income from trading in shares in the Assessee’s own name (speculation income) and the balance against the brokerage business Income. In this expenses of Kakinada Branch should be excluded. The same ratio will be applicable to depreciation as well. The balance expenditure should be set off against the brokerage income. As Assessee had earned profits in the business of trading in shares in their own name and there is no carried forward speculation losses to be set off. Profit from trading in shares in Assessee’s own name is to be treated as speculative profits - ground of appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed.
Trade credit accounts under sec 68 - Held that:- Assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the creditors. The onus is on the assessee to substantiate it’s claim and the assessee has not discharged the same. Accordingly, in the interest of justice The issue set aside to the file of the AO directing assessee to substantiate its claim - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Software expenses - Capital vs. Revenue expense - Held that:- Expenditure incurred for upgradation of software with new regulations of SEBI and not for acquiring any new software - revenue in nature and not Capital as no new asset is created - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 722 - ITAT CHENNAI
Claim of deduction u/s 80HH - denial - Held that:- Provision providing exemption, concession or exceptions in a fiscal statute has to be interpreted strictly. A person who claims exemption or concession, is required to establish clearly that he is covered by provision concerned and as per this decision of the constitutional Bench, in the case of any ambiguity, benefit will give go to the State. Section 80HH states that an industrial undertaking has to begin manufacture or production in a backward area. Mere intention to begin manufacture or production and making investment would not suffice for that purpose
CIT(Appeals) fell in error in giving very liberal interpretation to Section 80HH and holding that assessee's intention and investment to start an industry would suffice and actual manufacture or production could have been started even after the location went out of backward areas. There has to be actual manufacture or production. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] unequivocally held that provision providing exemption, concession or exceptions in a fiscal statute has to be interpreted strictly. A person who claims exemption or concession, is required to establish clearly, therefore set aside the orders of CIT(Appeals) and hold that assessee was not eligible to claim deduction under Section 80HH - against assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 721 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Undisclosed income - Block Assessment – Held that:- As seen from the impugned document, it is just a signed by a single party which was found in the course of search action at the assessee premises. The impugned document is only circumstantial evidence which required to be corroborated with other evidence. Though there is no necessity in law that the assessing officer is supposed to discharge tax liability by direct evidence only, there should be enough evidence to support the addition.
The circumstances surrounding the case were not strong enough to justify the rejection of assessee's plea as outrageous. On consideration of the assessee's arguments, no rejection of the same is called for on the reason that the sale agreement dated 6.2.98 is only a Xerox copy signed by the assessee alone and not by the vendees. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Moosa Madha & Azam S. Madha vs. CIT (1973 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT) that Photostat copies have very little evidentiary value. Being so, Xerox copies of any document cannot be itself considered as evidence for the purpose of making addition in this assessment. Further the consideration at Rs. 12.25 lakhs per acre cannot be said to have been paid as the transfer has not materialised and litigation is going on. Further the payment of Rs. 1 crore to Smt. Savitramma is also not supported by proper evidence to bring the same into taxation in the block assessment. Thus the unsigned document is a dumb document and cannot be relied upon for making addition in this case - in favour of assessee
Levy of interest u/s. 158BFA - Held that:- Levying of interest u/s. 158BFA is consequential and mandatory and no adjudication is required on this issue - appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
............
|
