|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 620
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee received the sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- from Shri N I Vyas through banking channel. In support of his claim, bank passbook of the depositor along with PAN Card and letter of confirmation from Shri Vyas are already on record. Thus, the identity and creditworthiness of the depositor is established. We further find that the sum has already been repaid by the assessee to Mr. Vyas through the banking channel in instalments in support of which necessary evidence is also on record. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction is also established. In the light of these undisputed facts of this case, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is hereby deleted
Disallowance of Telephone, Mobile, Petrol, Motor Vehicle expenses and Depreciation expenses - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% - Held that:- We feel that even 10% disallowance is on higher side keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a small retailer engaged in the business of distribution of cordless phones, etc. and, therefore, we deem it proper that the disallowance should be reduced to 5% of the total expenses
Addition pertaining to Sales Promotion, Staff Welfare and Repair Charges - Held that:- Keeping in view the fact that the assessee has incurred a small amount of ₹ 24,142/- under the head ‘Sales Promotion, Staff Welfare and Repair Charges’, and most of the expenses relates to repair charges – ₹ 16,000/- in respect of which, it is not possible always to maintain all the vouchers, the ad-hoc addition made is deleted.
-
2012 (4) TMI 619
... ...
... ... ..... properties at ₹ 3.80 crores. The assessee had submitted before CIT(A) that provisions of section 50C were not applicable in case of transfer of lease hold rights. The claim of the assessee that it had transferred only lease hold rights in the property had not been controverted by CIT(A). He, however, agreed with AO that provisions of section 50C were applicable. The said decision of CIT(A) is contrary to the decision of the Tribunal dated 13.5.2011 in case of Shri Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (supra), in which it has been held by the Tribunal that provisions of Section 50C are not applicable in case of lease hold rights in immovable property. No contrary decision of any High Court or Apex Court has been brought to the notice. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.4.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 617
... ...
... ... ..... n should be made after taking into consideration the past history of the case and current events of the case. Past history of the case is that trading result shown by assessee are better as compared to earlier year as in earlier year the GP rate was shown at 10.09 whereas during the year under consideration the GP rate is 10.15 . We further noted that whatever the excess stock was found during the course of survey that has already been offered for taxation. Therefore, there should not be any addition in trading account as held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Gottan Lime Khaniz Udyog, 246 ITR 243 (Raj.). However, the fact remains that certain purchases were remained unverifiable, therefore, we are of the considered view that if a trading addition of ₹ 50,000/- is sustained that will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 6. The order is pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 616
... ...
... ... ..... al gains of ₹ 11,07,171/- out of the total income from mutual funds amounting to ₹ 35,92,650/-. The assessee stated that the balance of interest out of ₹ 19,00,000 had been added back u/s 14A of the Act as it related to income which was not taxable. 9. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. 10. We heard both the parties and perused the books of account and details and from the facts of the case it is clear that only the interest component relating to taxable income has been claimed as a deduction. Further, the AO has not given any reasons as to why the nexus is not there. It is clear that the loan has been taken from the HDFC Bank and the interest has been paid on the same. Hence, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and delete the additions. 11. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. 12. Hence the Revenue’s appeals for both the assessment years 2004-05 and 2007 -08 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.4 .2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 614
Grant-in-aid - nature of income - Held that:- The use of the word "include" in section 2(24), the word "income" shall be construed as comprehending not only those items which said section declares that these shall include but also such items as it signifies according to its natural import. Since section 2(24) has not declared that such a grant-in-aid shall be included in the income, the word "revenue" shall be construed as comprehending what it signifies according to its natural import. In relation to a business undertaking, the word "revenue" connotes incomings of the undertaking which are products of the normal working of the undertaking.
The giving of financial aid or subsidy to the aforesaid committee, which admittedly is not carrying on any business, is at the discretion of the Government or Sugar factories. Thus, the grant-in-aid in question was not a product of the normal business activities of the assessee committee, assessed by the AO as a local authority. Therefore, such a grant-in-aid could not be termed as a revenue receipt so as to form part of the total income. As already pointed out, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the aforesaid funds received by the assessee from State Government and sugar factories have been spent only for those specific projects and there was no surplus with the assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 613
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- Reopening in this case is bad in law. The reasons recorded in the present case are also scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement except mentioned of supplementary list of beneficiaries. This can not be regarded as material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes escapement of income. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis of the information. Assessing Officer has accepted the information in a mechanical manner. Assessing Officer did not verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The Assessing Officer has not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or otherwise of the information or his satisfaction that a case has been made out for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has clearly substituted form for substance and therefore the Assessing Officer‘s action is not in accordance with law
-
2012 (4) TMI 612
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- The assessee, being a credit cooperative society is entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) claimed by it. We, therefore, hold that the order of the learned CIT(A) is in accordance with law and no interference is called for therein.
-
2012 (4) TMI 611
Eligibility for claim of exemption u/s 10(22)/10(23C) - Held that:- Since the assessee was owned by the State Government, it was a lengthy process for appointment of auditor, when the list of such auditors was given only by C & AG, the assessee has to go through various formalities for appointment of auditors and fixing their remuneration, which required proper approval and sanction of various authorities. As soon as the assessee has got the registration u/s 12AA, the assessee has also started to obtain necessary approval and also the audit report in prescribed form 10B for the claim of exemption u/s 11. Thus, we found that there was reasonable cause for delay in obtaining the audit report. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay in obtaining the audit report and direct the AO to examine the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 11 on merits, after verifying the various conditions which are required to be fulfilled, more particularly the utilization of receipts for the purpose of objects of society as discussed herein above to the extent of 85 %. Assessee is also directed to submit the other details as desired by the AO for verifying its claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
-
2012 (4) TMI 607
... ...
... ... ..... xamination by the AO it is found that the amounts which were claimed as expenditure and disallowed by the AO invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) had been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of TDS and did not remain payable as on the 31st day of March of the previous year, then no disallowance could be made by the revenue authorities. We therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue raised by the assessee before us to the AO for consideration in the light of the decision of the Special Bench referred to above. In view of the above we do not wish to go into the other submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee regarding the justification for the impugned addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 25th day of April 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 606
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made on the foundation of estimated high NP rate of 12% as against shown by the assessee at 10% - Held that:- A bare reading to the provisions of section 271(1) (c) of the Act exclude cases like that the present one from its purview. Therefore, there is hardly any need to seek support of judicial verdicts, in such cases. The case laws relied upon by the assessee have been rejected by the CIT(A), in a single stroke, without demonstrating how the same are not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the Revenue Authorities failed, to bring on record any judicial verdict, to support their conclusion. In view of the above facts, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Harigopal Singh vs CIT (2002 (8) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) whereby it has been categorically held that penalty cannot be levied when income has been estimated. Having regard to the above legal and factual discussion, the order of CIT(A), upholding the levy of penalty, is set aside. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 605
Disallowance of depreciation claimed as a part of utilization for impugned assessment year by assessee trust - Held that:- We set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that assessee’s claim with regard to depreciation while computing its exemption under Section 11 of the Act, be allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 604
Whether the consideration paid by the assessee to Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., for acquiring the non-exclusive rights to distribute SET and SETMAX Channels is in the nature of Royalty taxable @ 15% on gross basis under Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or is business profits? - Held that:- t Broadcasting Reproduction Right is not covered under the definition of Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act as well as Article 12 of the Treaty.Accordingly, the payment is not in the nature of Royalty but in the nature of business income.
No infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) that consideration paid by the assessee to the non-resident company for acquiring nonexclusive right to distribute TV channels is not in the nature of Royalty but in the nature of business income and hence, it was not subject to withholding tax. Accordingly, we uphold his order by dismissing the grounds taken by the department.
-
2012 (4) TMI 603
... ...
... ... ..... de by the assessee and received by M/s. Swen Television Ltd. have been verified from both the ends. There is no discrepancy found in this matter. The verification has also led to the fact that the payments include service tax and tax deduction at source. M/s. Swen Television Ltd. has offered the receipt for taxation in its return of income. In these circumstances, we are of the view that disallowing the expenditure on grounds of lack of rate card , TRP rating and sample agreement of M/s. Swen Television Ltd. with its client is not justified. Thus, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of expenditure incurred for advertising on Jhankar TV through advertisement agent, M/s. Swen Television Ltd. 6. The facts of assessment year 2007-08 are admittedly identical to the facts of asstt. year 2006-07. Therefore, the findings given in that year (supra) are made applicable to this year also. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 602
Foreign exchange fluctuation - Held that:- Loss suffered by an assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance sheet is an item of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- It is not in dispute that tax has been deducted at the applicable rates and the same has been remitted before due date of filing of the return. Sufficient compliance has been made after tax is remitted before the due date of filing of return.
Disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D to 5% of dividend income earned - Held that:- CIT(A) after examining the facts of the case and submissions of the parties has rightly held that 5% of the dividend income would be reasonable expenditure to earn the dividend income of ` 2,13,19,656/- thereby restricting disallowance to ₹ 10,65,980/-. In view of our above findings, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal as well.
-
2012 (4) TMI 598
... ...
... ... ..... , Ernakulam to dispose of Ext.P6 petition dated 27.2.12 and dispose of the appeal pending before him early and to direct the respondents not to treat the petitioner as an assessee in default till then." 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department also. 3. I am of opinion that insofar as the petitioner has a remedy by way of filing a stay petition in the appeal pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner should seek that remedy first. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions The petitioner shall file an application for stay before the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2 appeal within one week from today. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application. Till orders are thus passed, coercive recovery of the balance tax as per Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.
-
2012 (4) TMI 597
... ...
... ... ..... e basis of record available. Hence we reject this ground. 24. Consequently, ITA No.5728/M/2007 filed by the revenue also stands dismissed. ITA NO. 4347/M/2008 (AY 2003-04) ITA NO.4136/M/2009 (AY 2004-05) 25. Both the learned representatives have made a fair statement that ground nos. 2 & 3 in ITA No.4347/M/2008 as well as ground nos. 3 & 4 in ITA No.4136/M/2009 are general in nature. Ground No.1 in ITA No. 4347/M/2008 and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in ITA No. 4136/M/2009 relate to the very same issue i.e., amortized expenditure u/s 35D of the Act. They have also stated that the finding on this very issue in ITA No. 5728/M/2007 (Ground No.1) would also cover the issue involved in these appeals. Since, in above said appeal i.e., in ITA No. 5728/M/2007 we have decided the ground sec. 35D in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, therefore, the instant appeals filed by the revenue are also dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 595
... ...
... ... ..... ting material available against the assessee, which were found during the course of search to show that the assessee earned undisclosed income during the block period. Since the entire seized material was considered on substantive basis in the case of the person searched, therefore, the AO would not have any occasion to have satisfied himself to initiate proceedings u/s. 158BD against the assessee firm. Since, it is a departmental appeal and no material is produced before us to contradict the findings of the ld. CIT(A) through any material, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). The decision cited by the ld. DR would be distinguishable on the facts of the case because in that case, requisite satisfaction had been recorded by the AO. In the result, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 594
Jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 158BC - Held that:- The Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Chandigarh, issued Warrant of Authorization, dated 22.05.2002, u/s 132(1) of the Act in the name of Smt.Mohinder Kaur of M/s Lada Liquors Ltd., H.No. 694, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The said authorization was executed on 23.05.2002.
The AO framed Block Assessment order u/s 158BC of the Act, on 22.08.2005, in the status of 'individual' determining undisclosed income at ₹ 9,02,13,220/- for the block period commencing from 1.4.1996 to 23.5.2005.
Another block assessment order was framed by the AO u/s 158BC on 22.8.2005 of the Act in the status of 'Individual', determining the undisclosed income of the same block period at ₹ 8,57,15,730/-. As no Warrant of Authorization u/s 132(1) of the Act was issued, in the name of Smt.Mohinder Kaur, L/H of Late Shri Taranjit Singh W/o Shri Taranjit Singh, block assessment cannot be framed u/s 158BC of the Act in such status. Hence, the impugned block assessment order is bad in law and without jurisdiction.
Revenue has also failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating the factum of recording of satisfaction within the meaning of Section 158BD r.w. Section 158BC of the Act.
In view of the above discussions, the impugned Block Assessment order, which is under challenge, in the C.O. in question, has been passed without jurisdiction.
-
2012 (4) TMI 593
... ...
... ... ..... er, upon the evidence before it, the Tribunal has noted that the uses of the final product are distinct in respect of various industries. On this basis the Tribunal has entered two fold findings. Firstly, the raw material and end products have a different commercial connotation and use. A new and distinct product emerges during the course of the manufacturing process. Secondly, even if two views were possible, the CIT ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under section 263. The first conclusion of the Tribunal is based on the material on record and consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court which has been adverted to in the decision of the Tribunal. In any event, the impugned order of the Tribunal could also be sustained on the second finding, since recourse to the provisions of section 263 was not warranted. 5. For all these reasons, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 592
... ...
... ... ..... management system which has been assessed as confirming to ISO 9001-2000 standards. I do not understand what led the AO to conclude that the certification brought any enduring advantage or creation of any capital asset. Validity of such a certificate for only 3 years shows that it does not bring any enduring advantage. The addition made of ₹ 29,500/- is, therefore, disallowed.” 28. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has raised Gr.No.6 before the Tribunal. We have heard the submission of the learned DR who relied on the order of the AO. We are of the view that the reasons given by the AO for treating the expenditure as capital cannot be sustained. The expenses results in immediate benefit to the Assessee and cannot be regarded as capital expenditure. We therefore uphold order of CIT(A) and dismiss Gr.No.6 raised by the Revenue. 29. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th day of April 2012
............
|
