|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 769 Records
-
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
-
2012 (4) TMI 763
... ...
... ... ..... ent of ‘Will’ filed by the assessee without recording any statement of Dr.Murli M.Ratnani. In this view of the matter and keeping in view that the AO has accepted part of the jewellery as explained and no contrary material has been placed on record by the Revenue to show that the part of the explanation given by the assessee was found to be false and untrue, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable and accordingly the same is deleted. 36. Ground No.4 is against the levy of interest u/s 234A,234B and 234C. 37. After hearing rival parties and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any plea, we direct the AO to allow consequential relief in respect of levy of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. 38. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 762
... ...
... ... ..... 1 in their appeals for the AYs 2004-05 & 2005-06 are allowed. 40. Ground no. 3 in the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2003-04 & ground no.2 in their appeals for the AY 2004-05 & 2005-06, being general in nature nor any submissions having been made before us on these grounds, do not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.8 in the appeals of the Revenue for the AY 2003-04 & 2005-06 as also residuary ground no. 7 in their appeal the AY 2004- 05 & residuary grounds in the appeals of the assessee for the AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06,accordingly,all these grounds are dismissed. 41. No other plea or argument was made before us. 42. In the result , appeal of the assessee for the AY 2003-04 is partly allowed, but for statistical purposes while their appeals for the AYs 2004-05 & 2005-06 are allowed and all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (4) TMI 761
Expenditure on Lease premium - Capital or Revenue Expenditure - Assessee entered in agreements with different authorities for obtaining land on long term lease thereon and lease period varies from 10 years to 95 years - Claimed proportionate amount of lease premium paid as advance payable and claimed the expenditure as revenue expenditure u/s. 37 - Allowed by CIT(A) as revenue expenditure following assessee's own case - Thus, Revenue Appeal
HELD THAT:- In the issue before Special Bench in the case of JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE 25, MUMBAI VERSUS MUKUND LTD. [2007 (2) TMI 358 - ITAT MUMBAI], the assessee company entered into exactly similar agreement with MIDC as in the present case before us. It was held that "Assessee terminated the lease agreement prior to the expiry of lease period of 99 years. There was also no material on record to show that the assessee had made the advance payment of rent for future years to secure any reduction in the rent payable for the future years or for any other business consideration. Hence, the consideration of amount paid by the assessee for obtaining the leasehold rights from the MIDC in its favour for a period of 99 years was capital in nature and, therefore, not allowable as deduction to the assesse"
In assessee’s own case for AY 2003-04, the decision of Special Bench in the case of Mukund Ltd was never cited even though it was available at that time. In such circumstances, we are of the view that now we have alternative except to follow the ratio laid down by Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mukund Ltd.
Respectfully following Special Bench in the case of Mukund Ltd we reverse the order of CIT(A) and restore that of the A.O - Decision against Assessee
-
2012 (4) TMI 760
... ...
... ... ..... r the same, if necessary. 44. To facilitate the implementation and execution of this order, the Official Liquidator shall be entitled to take assistance of the SFIO officers who had conducted the investigation in the present case. Moreover, as implementation and execution of this order will take some time, all the parties against whom interim order has been passed today, are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the assets and accounts attached. Needless to say, this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties that may be urged at the time of final hearing of the application. 45. List the matters on 18th May, 2012 at 2 15 p.m. for further hearing of the SFIO report with regard to immovable properties situated outside the National Capital Region of Delhi as well as other assets of company in liquidation and for consideration of interim orders against other officers of JVG Group of Companies. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
-
2012 (4) TMI 759
... ...
... ... ..... on from the Income Tax Department. The petitioner has brought on record the letter dated 5.9.2011 of the Housing Development Finance Corporation, by which respondent no. 5 was informed that the Corporation has received a letter dated 24.8.2011 from the Tax Recovery Officer, Government of India. The Corporation has written to respondent no. 5 to proceed with the cancellation of allotment of flat. We, by order of the date passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1767 of 2011 (Jitendra Kumar Shaw alias Aditya Kumar v. Union of India & others), have already quashed the notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer including the subsequent notices, summons and all consequential action. The ends of justice will be served if the petitioner is permitted to submit a detailed representation before respondent no. 4, who may look into the grievance of the petitioner and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. Order accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of finally.
-
2012 (4) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... of survey action under sec.133A, which has been later on retracted. The decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench is squarely on this point. In that case, a statement was obtained in the course of survey and thereafter that was retracted and on that basis the Tribunal held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. 15. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the substratum to give a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, is vitiated in these cases. Therefore, the impugned reassessments are not sustainable in law. They are accordingly set aside. 16. As the income escapement assessments themselves have been vitiated, the revision orders passed under sec.263 for assessment years 2000-01 and 2003-04 in the case of Dr. J. Mohan do not survive. Those orders are also set aside. 17. In result, these appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 23rd of April , 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (4) TMI 757
... ...
... ... ..... ling foods (supra) has been rightly applied by the Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Food (Goa) (1995) 127 CTR (Bom.) 30 (1995) 213 ITR 851 (Bom.) to a claim under s. 80HH of the IT Act and it has been held that the activity of processing of prawns is not an activity of manufacture or production. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court aforementioned in Sterling Foods (supra) is apposite to the question that we have to decide and, upon the material that is before us, we must reverse the view taken by the High Court in the judgment under appeal.” 7. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited above, we hold that the processing of marine products does not involve production and hence, the assessee is not entitled to additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 27-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... incing enough to imply that the assessee had incurred material and labor expenses essential for completion of the building, then he should have allowed the assessee’s claim and not sustained any portion of the disallowance. However, we are unable to concur with the view that the entire expenditure claimed be allowed as in normal construction activity, labour charges / expenses are generally made through self made voucher and bills and therefore the likelihood of claiming such expenses excessively cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances and after overall consideration of the factual situation of the case, we feel it would be fair and serve the interest of justice if the disallowance of ₹ 10,20,355 be sustained to the extent of ₹ 4,00,000 thereby granting the assessee further partial relief of ₹ 2,10,315. It is ordered accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 755
... ...
... ... ..... absent in this case. As such while considering the entirety of facts, circumstances and material on record, we find it just and appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back on his file with the direction to re-decide the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee well as to the Assessing Officer and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. 9. Assessee is found to have also filed a stay application which is registered at No.33/Del./2012. It has been fixed for hearing on 20th April, 2012. Since, we have decided the main appeal, therefore, the stay application of the assessee becomes in fructuous and the same is, as such, closed resulting in dismissal. 10. As a result, the appeal of the assessee gets accepted for statistical purposes and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed being in fructuous. Order pronounced in open court soon after the conclusion of the hearing on 09.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 754
... ...
... ... ..... nly in case the answer to the first question is in the negative. If no cognizance could be taken on the basis of a complaint filed prematurely, the question would be whether such a complaint could be presented again after the expiry of 15 days and beyond the period of one month under the Clause (b) of Section 142 of the Act. Whether or not the complainant can in a situation like the one in the case at hand invoke the proviso to Clause (b) and whether or not this Court can and ought to invoke its power under Section 142 to permit the complainant to file a complaint even after the expiry of period of one month stipulated under Section 142 are incidental questions that may fall for determination while answering question No. 2. 17. In the light of the above, we deem it fit to refer the two questions formulated in the beginning of the judgment to a three-Judge Bench of this Court. The Registry shall place the file before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.
-
2012 (4) TMI 753
... ...
... ... ..... . In this view of the matter, we are inclined to agree that the impugned order does not adversely affect the rights of the appellant and hence not an appealable order within the meaning of Section 15T of the Act. We have also noted that this is not a case where the appellant is without a remedy. The appellant is already pursuing its grievance on the same issue in its petition filed before the Company Law Board which is still under consideration. The appellant has approached Delhi High Court also on the same set of allegations and the suit filed by it against the respondents was dismissed by the Court. 7. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and hold that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 15T of the Act against the impugned order. Since we are rejecting the appeal on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, we are not going into the merits of the case. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 752
Expenditure on Advertisements - Revenue or Capital Expenditure? - The AO stated that the advertisement expenditure resulted in creating benefit of enduring nature, thus is capital in nature where as CIT(A) treated it as revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT VERSUS M/S. GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS WYETH LIMITED) [2009 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it was held that the expenditure was incurred in respect of promoting ongoing products of the assessee and, therefore, the expenditure is for promotion of the products of the assessee which is revenue in nature.
In the present case, the expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for production of ‘ad-films’, advertisement in electronic and print media, in respect of promotion of its ‘on-going products’. Hence, we hold that the said expenditure has rightly been treated as revenue in nature by CIT(A), which was incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business - Decision in favour of Assessee.
TP Adjustment - Computation of Arms Length Price in respect of Business Activities - TNMM or RPM? - Assessee is a 100% subsidiary company of L’Oreal SA France and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distribution of products. In respect of business of distribution, the TPO while rejecting the Resale Price Method (RPM) as adopted by assessee, has suggested some adjustment by applying Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) - HELD THAT:- We agree with ld CIT(A) that there is no order of priority of methods to determine ALP. RPM is one of the standard method and OECD guidelines also states that in case of distribution and marketing activities when the goods are purchased from AEs which are sold to unrelated parties, RPM is the most appropriate method. Accordingly, the appellant’s international transaction in respect of imports of finished goods can be said to be at arm’s length. Therefore, RPM method is accepted - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Receipt of services and benefit from AEs in lieu of the marketing fee payments - Assessee has paid to its overseas AEs some amount as cost contribution, wherein certain common marketing services were rendered by group entities. TPO stated that in the absence of any direct evidence to indicate the benefit to the assessee, it is concluded that the assessee has not benefited at all from the cost sharing arrangement and has considered the cost sharing arrangement at ALP for the same at Nil.
HELD THAT:- We consider it prudent to set aside the orders of authorities and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction that he will get it examined from TPO as to whether the assessee has received any benefit under cost sharing arrangement for which assessee made the payment. In case assessee is able to produce requisite documents to the satisfaction of the TPO that the assessee received benefit under cost sharing arrangement, he will decide the claim of the assessee accordingly - Matter Restored back.
-
2012 (4) TMI 751
... ...
... ... ..... purchases made by the assessee. 7. The Ld AR argued that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of report of DIT investigation and no further material was brought for making addition and that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 8. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record and we are of the considered opinion that without bringing anything specific on record regarding purchases, the purchases cannot be termed as bogus purchases. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of the report of DIT (Inv.), even though the monthly purchase bills pertaining to the purchases, nor the factum of payment through cheque did not stand disproved by anything brought by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the CIT(A)’s order does not call for any interference and it is confirmed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 10. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 750
Rejection of Books of Accounts u/s 145(3) - Estimation of Net Profit - Fair Estimation u/s 44AD - AO opined that the books of account of the assessee are not reliable, accordingly, rejected the same and calculated the income of the assessee at 8% of the total receipts. CIT(A) upheld the action of AO on the issue of rejection of books of accounts. Further, on the basis of income assessed in previous assessment year estimated the net profit rate of 5% - HELD THAT:- AO has not given any reasonable explanation while applying 8% net profit rate on the assessee’s gross receipts for the assessment year. The income assessed in the previous year in assessee’s case was apparently 3.6% of its net receipts. But in the present assessment year, the AO has pointed out various defects in the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) considering all the defects pointed out by the AO and finally, validly and reasonably determined the net profit rate at 5% after allowing depreciation and interest to the partners on the assessee’s turnover. CIT(A)'s order upheld - Revenue Appeal Dismissed.
Carry Forward of Losses - Assessee has filed original return on due date but has filed revised return of loss after due date. Thus, loss was not carry forward u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- Revised return was filed by the assessee after due date, thus he is not entitled for any carried forward losses - Decision against Assessee.
........
|
