|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 668
... ...
... ... ..... In a case where an issue was examined and considered in the original assessment proceedings, mere question(s) is not sufficient. There is no material/evidence to show that the statement or the explanation given by the petitioner was false. This is not alleged or stated in the reasons to believe. Mere doubt or suspicion without any tangible material cannot justify re-opening. The Assessing Officer could have justified reopening if he had conducted verification and inquiries and referred to material/evidence to prima facie show that the explanation of the petitioner was false and wrong. No such exercise and verification was made and the reasons to believe are silent. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, a Writ of Certiorari is issued quashing the Notice dated 14.09.2009. In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. In view of the fact that we have quashed the notice, the re-assessment order, if any, passed by the Assessing Officer shall be treated as void.
-
2012 (4) TMI 667
... ...
... ... ..... siness of financing or advancing loans.” 14.1. Meaning thereby that once the transactions in question have not been held to be false, the only question remains is allowability of the claim under the provisions of the Act. In respect of such situation, we hold that case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Perto Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., duly covers such case wherein it has been held that “where information given in return is not found to be incorrect or inaccurate; the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars.” 15. On the same analogy, we also hold that in the instant case, the assessee has not been found to be guilty of furnishing wrong particulars of income. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly passed impugned order. Hence, the said impugned order does not warrant any interference. 16. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 666
... ...
... ... ..... ll. As per Sh.Shah-“ ... in respect of the above mentioned purchase bill, I confirm that this is a bogus bill issued by somebody.” Such statements cannot form basis for fastening tax liability to an aseesee. 13. Sequences of events may have raised suspicion about FTEL shares transactions, but suspicion or doubt of highest degree cannot take place of prima facie evidence. Facts of the case under consideration do not indicate that there are evidence to uphold the view of the CIT(A).We are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s.54EC arising out of the LTCG. Cases relied upon by the AR of the assessee in the case of ITO vs. Shri Jitendra J Gandhi, Mukesh R Marolia vs. ACIT and ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal (supra) also endorse our views. In view of these discussions, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and reverse the order of the CIT(A). 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 4th day of April , 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 665
... ...
... ... ..... med by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation at the rate of 60 following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Datacraft India Ltd. - 40 SOT 295 (Mum)(SB). In that case, the Special Bench of ITAT held that router and switches which are necessary for the operation of computer are to be classified as computer and, therefore, entitled to 60 depreciation. In our opinion, the ratio of the above decision would be squarely applicable to the case under appeal before us. The accessories and peripherals purchased during the year under consideration are an integral part of the computer. Therefore, the same are entitled to depreciation as a computer. Accordingly, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is deemed to be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 13th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 664
... ...
... ... ..... ffer from the findings of the CIT (A). All these amounts are disputed amounts and there are various orders of authorities in earlier years. Therefore, these disallowances, if any cannot be considered for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) either under the head "Concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars". Since the issues are of debatable nature and claims are genuinely made being a public limited bank, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) in deleting penalty. The CIT (A) passed a common order for assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 and the appeal in ITA No.715/Coch/2007 for assessment year 2001-02 by the Revenue was also dismissed vide orders dated 24/06/2011. Since facts are similar, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the Revenue appeal. 39. In the result appeal filed in ITA Nos.476 and 581 are partly allowed and the appeal in ITA No. 716/Coch/2007 is dissmissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 662
... ...
... ... ..... irected him to reopen the assessment and, therefore, it was held that there was no application of mind on the part of the assessing authority. The same is not the case before us as there was no such direction of a higher authority to the AO to reopen the assessment and he acted independently on the basis of specific information received from the Investigation Wing, Surat along with prima facie evidence in the form of a diary and statement of Shri Shashikant J Mandavkar who wrote the diary pertaining to the Trust which run the Medical Courses, that the sum of ₹ 18,27,500/- has been paid by the assessee to get admission of his son in MBBS course. 16 In view of the above, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue also and the cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 17 In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 27-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 661
... ...
... ... ..... ere based upon the contract received by the old unit or the customers of the old unit. Under these circumstances, we while setting aside the orders of the authorities below, direct the A.O to allow the claimed deduction on the turnover of sales of the goods/works executed by the new unit. o p /o p The issue is thus decided in favour of the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal preferred by the revenue are thus rejected and thus ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal preferred by the assessee are allowed.” o p /o p 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any distinguishing material brought to our notice by the ld. D.R., the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. o p /o p 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12th April, 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 660
Income from sale of shares - capital gain or business income - STT - Held that:- The assessee has purchased shares which are delivery based and made the payment and vice versa is not under dispute. Whereas the trader normally makes the purchase and sale during the day without taking delivery and settling the transactions ultimately as at the end of the day without delivery, which is not the case of the assessee. The assessee has been declaring the shares as investment since assessment year 2001-02 is a matter of record and the department has not brought on record any different facts and in the absence of any material change justifying the department to take different view from that taken in earlier proceedings. The department cannot change the stand in the subsequent year. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and decisions of various courts of law relied upon by both the parties, we are of the view that the assessee is a investor and cannot be termed as a trader in shares. Therefore, the AO is directed to accept the claim of the assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 657
... ...
... ... ..... 05 and following the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s Limak Soma Joint Venture, Hyderabad (supra), 13. We hold that no case for disallowance/addition could be made u/s 40A(2) by the Revenue and since there being no merit on the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue, the grounds taken by the Revenue are rejected. 14. However, in the present case, STICCO has distributed 0.5 of the contracts receipts by the JV viz. PCLSTICCO. The learned CIT upheld the assessment of those receipts on the ground that the assessee could not produce the evidence of the filing of the return by STICCO admitting the receipts from Joint Venture. The assessee did not contest on this issue, therefore the addition to the extent of ₹ 9,94,877/- will have to be sustained. 15. Hence, the appeal in ITA No.150/Hyd/2008 is partly allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal in ITA No.149/Hyd/2008 is dismissed and the appeal in ITA No.150/Hyd/2008 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 11.4.2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 656
Validity of assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 158BC - notice u/s.143(2) was issued and served beyond the period of 12 months from the date of filing of return of income in pursuant to notice u/s.158BC - Held that:- From a perusal of para 4 of the assessment order, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has mentioned, that notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. During the course of the hearing, it was clarified before the Bench by the learned AR that it is a matter of record that the notice u/s.143(2) has been issued beyond the period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. i.e. 19.05.2003. DR has also not disputed this fact and admitted that the notice u/s.143(2) has been issued beyond the period of 12 months. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the department stands dismissed on the preliminary issue raised by the respondent-assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 655
Non deduction of tds - amounts of expenditure which are payable - Held that:- Addition made by Assessing Officer and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are hereby deleted as the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the date 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow which had been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of TDS.
Disallowance of telephone expenses, petrol expenses and depreciation of car - Held that:- We find that assessee has incurred small amount under the head of telephone, petrol expenses etc., and therefore Assessing Officer was not justified in making ad hoc disallowance at the rate of 20% of total expenses incurred by the assessee. The disallowance appears to be on higher side, therefore we restrict this addition to 10% of the total expenses and AO is directed to recalculate the disallowance accordingly. This ground of assessee is partly allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 654
... ...
... ... ..... sessed as business income since the intention of the appellant is to exploit property commercially. o p /o p Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. o p /o p CO. No.92/Ahd/2009 (Assessee’s CO) o p /o p 5. The only ground raised in the CO reads as under o p /o p “1. The department has erred in preferring the subject appeal on the ground that ld.CiT9A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,30,141/- on account of “Business Income” treated as “Income from House Property”. o p /o p 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ground of the appeal is merely supportive in nature. Accordingly, the ground of the CO raised by the assessee is not maintainable and is dismissed. o p /o p 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove. o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 653
Determine arm’s length price of the international transactions - information u/s 133(6) - violation of fundamental principle of natural justice - Held that:- Any information obtained in the course of assessment proceedings has to be supplied to the assessee for its objections, if any. The absence of doing so leads to violation of fundamental principle of natural justice. In view thereof, the matter is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to supply whatsoever information he wants to use against the assessee to it, grant it reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order as per law.
-
2012 (4) TMI 652
... ...
... ... ..... he AO was mot correct in law in valuing the work-in-progress in respect of various expenses incurred by the assessee relating to fabric while In process for dyeing and printing. We. accordingly, delete the addition of ₹ 4,11,335/-. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 5.3 In the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions on identical facts and circumstances, we have no alternative but to allow the claim of the assessee in the instant case. Therefore, ground no.1 in the appeal is allowed.” 6. In view of the fact that the Coordinate bench of the Tribunal has already taken a view in respect of the issue in question, therefore, respectfully following the decision in I.T.A.No. 2728/ahd/2000, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of ₹ 2,91,619/- made on account of w.i.p. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 8. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (4) TMI 651
... ...
... ... ..... trial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, and in such circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that interest of justice demanded that the matter should be referred back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the question after considering the relevant provision contained in the scheme sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. o p /o p Since, on the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal only on the question of fact the matter was remanded back, we do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. Consequently, this Appeal is summarily dismissed. o p /o p As indicated above, dismissal of this Appeal will not stand in the way of the Revenue in filing appropriate miscellaneous application if it is so advised, in accordance with law. o p /o p We make it clear that we have not gone into that question of inadvertent error apparent on the record. o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 650
... ...
... ... ..... d as interest paid. The High Court has not agree with the Revenue and has held that bill discount cannot be equated and treated as interest paid and therefore the tax at source was not liable to be deducted. The present appeals are directed against recipient Cargill Financial Services Asia Pvt Ltd. who had entered into the transaction/agreement with Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. The issue being identical and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra), no substantial question of law arises and the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 649
Assessment under section 153C - Held that:- The determination of undisclosed income consequent to search action and framing assessment under section 153C of the Act is different from regular assessment or it is not substitute for regular assessment. Being so, the AO shall frame assessment on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search action under sec. 153C of the Act. The AO without bringing any incriminating material on record for the purpose of determination of undisclosed income on estimate basis is not possible in the present circumstances to frame the assessment under section 153C of the Act. Therefore,, after considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case and after going through the order of the CIT (A) in the instant case, we find the CIT (A) is perfectly justified in allowing the claims of the assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 647
... ...
... ... ..... ngs of the AO in the light of directions of the DRP in para 5 of their order dated 12th September, 2011. In view thereof, ground nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal are dismissed. 6. Adverting now to ground relating to levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, we find that the AO while completing the assessment levied interest of ₹ 12,08,163/- u/s 234D of the Act whereas in the ground of appeal before us, the assessee disputed only the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. Since the issue of levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act does not emanate from the impugned order while levy of interest u/s 234D of the Act was neither disputed before the DRP nor even before us, accordingly ground relating to levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, being academic ,is dismissed. 7. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 8. No other plea or argument was raised before us. 9. In result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 646
... ...
... ... ..... indicated by the Division Bench in its judgment in Kotak Securities Limited. 4. As regards VSAT and lease line charges, the issue again is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 28 July 2011 in The Income Tax Commissioner v. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. (ITXAL 475 of 2011). While dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue, the Division Bench held in that case that VSAT and lease line charges paid by the assessee to the Stock Exchange constitute reimbursement of the charges paid/ payable by the Stock Exchange to the Department of Telecommunications. Hence, the VSAT and lease line charges paid by the assessee do not have any element of income and deducting withholding tax while making such payments would not arise. Following the judgment in Angel Capital, we hold that no substantial question of law would arise. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 645
... ...
... ... ..... ryana High Court and the same has to be followed in preference to the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we reject the ground raised before us.” 8. Thus it is clear that after considering the decision as relied upon by the learned AR, this Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. H. G. Gupta and Sons (supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & ANR (supra). Since the issue is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore, by following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we decide this issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2012.
............
|
