|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 801
... ...
... ... ..... Corporation, 182 ITR 216 held that the liability to pay damages on account of breach of contract is an allowable deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble apex Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shantilal P. Ltd.,144 ITR 57, wherein, it was held that any amount incurred by the assessee on account of non-fulfillment of business contract for reasons beyond his control is incidental to business and is an allowable deduction. 20. Since the said amount has been made by the assessee on account of breach of contractual obligation, we agree with the CIT(A) that it is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act as business expenditure. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we uphold the same. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 21. In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 4th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 800
... ...
... ... ..... ”. Since the assessee produced sufficient evidence before the AO to prove the genuineness of the loans in the matter and the AO did not enforce attendance of the creditors for their examination on the request of the assessee, therefore, the AO cannot treat the credits as non-genuine in the matter. The ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of same assessee in the identical facts in assessment year 1997-98 and 1999-2000 dismissed the departmental appeals vide orders referred to above. No changes in the facts and circumstances of the case have been brought to our notice. Considering the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue with regard to giving of loans to the assessee. The interest paid on the loans have, therefore, been rightly allowed as deduction by the ld. CIT(A). There is no merit in the departmental appeal on any of the grounds. Same is accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, The order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 798
... ...
... ... ..... h was not paid for 57 months after that amount became payable. The assessee was entitled to interest for 57 months on ₹ 45,73,528/-.” 9. In the Development Bank of Singapore Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal directed the A.O. to allow interest on interest in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra). 10. Respectfully following the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.E.G. Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that all the decisions relied on by the Revenue are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. This being so we direct the A.O. to allow the interest u/s 244A in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.E.G. Ltd. (supra). The common grounds taken by the assessee in all these three appeals are, therefore, allowed. 11. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 796
... ...
... ... ..... construction of houses. It has received advance money. The booking advance as per No.2 books have already been treated as “Deemed Sales” and considered as Income. The booking money received by assessee has been treated as receipts forming part of sales. This fact is also not disputed by Assessing Officer. We agree with the contention of the assessee, that once the booking advance has been assessed as undisclosed income by invoking provisions of section 68, the same cannot be considered as deposit/loan in violation of section 269SS/269T. We are therefore, of the view that once the amount has been considered as income, the same cannot be considered as deposit for levy of penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s 271D & 271E. We accordingly direct the deletion of penalty. 12. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13-4-2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 795
... ...
... ... ..... ust during the years. To a specific query by the Bench about the Remarks of the CA that the advances were given to three trusts without permission of the Charity Commissioner as to under what provisions of law, this permission is required, both the parties failed to assist the Bench. Since non-approval of the Charity Commissioner has weighed heavily against the assessee-trust with Ld. DIT (Exemption) while rejecting the application for renewal, it is imperative to ascertain whether in fact such approval is of such a vital importance or not. Unless the relevant material is on record, it will not be proper on our part to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad for fresh adjudication after bringing all the material relevant for granting of exemption including those mentioned above. 4 In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the court today on 20-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 791
... ...
... ... ..... est of the Ld. AR for remitting all these appeals to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to again call a remand report from the Assessing Officer with a direction to Assessing Officer to give the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee the Assessing Officer will re-submit the remand report which will be submitted to CIT (A) on the basis of which Ld. CIT (A) will re-adjudicate all these appeals filed by the assessee as per provisions of law. We direct accordingly. Since we are restoring these appeals to the file of CIT (A), we do not express any opinion regarding the merits of additions which have been upheld by Ld. CIT (A) as those will be re-considered by Ld. CIT (A) in pursuance of our above directions. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are considered to be allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 790
... ...
... ... ..... of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009 does not survive because it has been set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT for passing a fresh order. Thus, when the order under Section 263 dated 31.12.2009 does not survive, the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 passed in pursuance to the order under Section 263 dated 31.12.2009 cannot survive. We, therefore, hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment order dated 28.12.2010. However, before we part with the matter, we may clarify that the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to pass the fresh assessment order in accordance with law in pursuance to the fresh order passed under Section 263, if so advised. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 17th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 789
... ...
... ... ..... igible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Paliwal Ice & Cold Store V/s ITO(ITA No.231/Agr./2007 dated 24.10.2008), a copy of which has also been filed before us. It has also been brought to our notice that the said decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, vide its order dated 3.11.2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.288 of 2009. In view of the matter and in the absence of any decision to the contrary brought to our notice, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the same rejecting the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal”. 7. Respectfully following our decision in assessee’s own case for earlier years, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. 8. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11. 4.2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 787
... ...
... ... ..... of public issue expenses u/s 35(2) of the Act, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is confirmed. (3) The next issue is with regard to interest on bank deposit and RBI Bonds. Both the Members, who originally constituted the bench found that it has to be assessed as “Income from other sources’. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is set aside and that of the assessing officer is allowed. 4. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assessee, the only issue is with regard to the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As per the decision of both the Members, who constituted the bench originally has set aside this issue to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) to decide the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objections are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 782
... ...
... ... ..... ndered in assessment year 2005-06 on a similar issue and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) allowing the claim of the assessee for depreciation on technical knowhow and right to use trademark. 17. In its cross objection filed for assessment year 2004-05, the assessee company has raised a solitary issue challenging the validity of reassessment made by the AO u/s 143(3) read with section 147. Since the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2004-05 deleting all the additions made by the AO in the reassessment made u/s 143(3) read with section 147 has been upheld by us while disposing of the cross appeal filed by the Revenue, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the said assessment has become virtually infructuous. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 18. In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 11th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 781
... ...
... ... ..... ssee is closed down, admittedly the benefit of CENVAT credit not availed of against the excise duty payable on manufactured items, cannot be utilized by the assessee and the said write off of CENVAT credit, is allowable as an expenditure in the year under consideration on the closure of the business. The write off of CENVAT credit by the assessee in its books of account is thus allowable as business expenditure under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act relatable to the year, in which the manufacturing activities are closed down by the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of write off of CENVAT credit of ₹ 35,94,577/-. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 11. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is not pressed and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 25th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 777
... ...
... ... ..... stration from the date of inception of the trust, as the time available for reopening is only six years. Therefore, he requests to recall the order passed on 18-8-2011 and adjudicate the appeal. 3. We considered the petition of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal has directed to grant registration to the assessee retrospectively. The law relating to time limit in respect of reopening or the period of limitation is not applicable in the present case. This is because, the registration is to be granted as a result of the order of the Tribunal. There is no such time limit prescribed under the Act. The time limit runs only from the date of the order of the Tribunal. 4. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax is within law to grant retrospective registration, as directed by the Tribunal. 5. In result, this petition filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 20th of April, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (4) TMI 774
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue. Wherever the assessee is getting any benefit out of the transactions, the assessee is offering the same as income under sec.41(1). When all these matters are accepted by the Revenue, it is incumbent upon them to accept the loss arising out of such transactions and allow it as a deduction. The bad debts were taken over as part of its business and even if those amounts were written off, as the amounts were not collected, they partook the character of business loss. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction under sec.37(1). 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for the amount of bad debts claimed by the assessee as a business loss. It is not necessary to be carried away by the nomenclature extended to the loss as ‘bad debt’. In fact, it is a business loss. 10. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Monday , the 2nd of April , 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (4) TMI 772
... ...
... ... ..... e no basis or foundation in the statutory provision, as noted by the Tribunal. Under the provisions of Section 10 (23G), it is inter alia provided that any income by way of interest from investment made in long term finance in any enterprise or undertaking which wholly engages in the business referred to in Section 80 IA (4) or Section 80 IB (3) or a housing project referred to in Section 80 IB (10) or a hotel project or a hospital project and which has been approved by the Central Government and which satisfied the prescribed conditions would be exempted. 3. Save and except for the said two grounds, there was no dispute that the other conditions which were fulfilled. Both, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal on a careful appraisal, have found that the conditions of Section 10 (23G) have been fulfilled. In that view of the matter, the Appeal will not raise any substantial question of law and is dismissed. No substantial question of law is raised. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 769
... ...
... ... ..... rative expenses which was placed at page-12 of the paper book. It is observed that the total bank and other charges debited only ₹ 1,125.86 and AO has disallowed the entire amount u/s 14A of the IT Act. Further as per Schedule-11 which is consisting of payments to and provisions for employees the assessee has incurred an amount of ₹ 2,77,387/-. Out of this he apportioned ₹ 10,000/- u/s 14 A of the IT Act. Keeping in view of the above facts and the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd. vs DCIT 328 ITR 81 and ITAT Kolkata in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. we find no justification on the part of the revenue to make estimation at 0.5% of the investments. Therefore, we set aside orders of the revenue authorities and direct AO to accept the disallowance made by assessee amounting to ₹ 98,795/-. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 13.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 768
... ...
... ... ..... e that assessee purchased land and given on lease for mining to extract clay for 10 years on a premium of ₹ 5 lakhs in addition to royalty. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the grant of mining lease was capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. Similarly, the other two decisions relied on by the CIT in the case of CIT v. C.F. Thomas (supra) and CIT v. Sujatha Jewellers (supra) are distinguishable on facts. 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT fell in error in holding that the lease transaction is a transaction of sale and directing the Assessing Officer to compute the capital gains arising out of the lease agreement dated 01.06.2005. Therefore, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee on this issue and set aside the order of the CIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 16.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... that the entire book entry wherein the assessee claimed the bad debs was a mean to reduce taxable profits. It is also seen from the order that the AO has brought on record that even in financial year 2003-04, relevant to the current assessment year, the assessee company and SNBPL had numerous transactions. Besides these facts, the relevant provision of the Act is also very clear that unless such debt or part thereof have been included in the computation of income of previous year or earlier previous years, it cannot be allowed as a bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii). We are therefore in agreement of the lower authorities, that the assessee’s claim of ₹ 27.71 lacs as bad debts is more of an eye wash and a tool to reduce the taxable income then an actual loss suffered by the assessee company. We, therefore, uphold the addition and reject this ground of appeal. 13. The appeal, filed by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 766
... ...
... ... ..... In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case and without further going into detail, we hold that the amount of ₹ 12,91,000/- does not belong to assessee but it belong to Shri Ratan Lal Meena and accordingly it cannot be assessed in the hands of assessee. For the sake of clarification also, Shri Ratan Lal Meena has shown this amount in his return and same has been accepted by the department and this fact has been noted in the order of ld. CIT (A). Copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2004 is placed at page 91 and amount of₹ 12,91,000/- has been shown in assets side by Shri Ratan Lal Meena. Copy of return is placed at page 96. Copy of Balance sheet for A.Y. 2003-04 and the amount of ₹ 12,91,000/- has been shown in assets side for this year also. In view of these facts and circumstances, we delete the addition of ₹ 12,91,000/-. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 10. The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.4.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... uilding which is not for the purpose of restoration but for the purpose of preserving or maintaining an already existing asset and do not bring a new asset into existence or do not give to the assessee a new advantage or a different advantage. From the judicial pronouncements, it is clear that expenditure which is not for the purpose of renewal or restoration and expenditure which does not bring a new asset into existence or does not give to the assessee a new or different advantage, is allowable as Revenue Expenditure. On examination of the case laws cited by the ld.DR, we are of the view that due to the distinction in facts and on that basis there was distinction in the application of the law, hence as far as the present set of facts of the case are concerned, those precedence are misplaced. Under these circumstances and in view of the discussion made above, we hereby diirect to allow the claim as Revenue Expenditure. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. 6. Once the issue is decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax in February, 2007 but the same was deposited in May, 2007 for the AY 2007-08 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 8. Order pronounced in open court on 20.04.12
........
|
