|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 894 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioners that this case is one of the revenue neutrality. After more than a decade of the entire event, we would not be inclined to direct the petitioners to pay the differential duty of ₹ 16.78 Lacs to the Department and then claim cenvat credit of matching amount its cenvat account. There was nothing on record to point that had such cenvat credit remained in the account of the petitioners, the same petitioners were not in a position to utilize or encash as per the scheme of the Government. It is not the suggestion of the Department that to utilize unused cenvat credit, the petitioners had deprived this method of paying higher excise duty and claiming higher rebate. 10. Under these circumstances, without going into larger question raised by both the sides, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Government dated 06.08.2008 is quashed. Resultantly, the orders passed by the excise authority also stands nullified. The petition is disposed of, accordingly.
-
2013 (1) TMI 893 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... enses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the Act. Under the said provisions, the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income is required to be computed as per Rule 8D. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81) have held that Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and in respect of prior years, it was held that disallowance had to be made on a reasonable basis after hearing the assessee. In this case, CIT(A) directed the AO to make disallowance as per Rule 8D which is not correct. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for necessary examination in the light of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT (supra) and for passing a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee . 6. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01. 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 892 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether the income earned from the sale of shares is admissible as business income or capital gains - Held that:- The assessee was carrying business of investment in shares for last 30 years and for the last 25 years was assessed to tax under the head capital gains and not under the head of profit and gains of business by the revenue - The revenue never treated the shares as stock in trade of the respondent assessee - hence assessee is not carrying on business of shares trading- thus no question of law arises - appeal is dismissed in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 891 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capitalisation as a part of Expenses - Assessee company is engaged in the business of commercial construction claimed deduction in respect to administrative expenses, employee's remuneration and interest. AO said that these costs ought to have been also capitalized and, accordingly, the assessee had under-disclosed profit. Assessee explained that the construction to the extent not sold, i.e., on which no profit stands booked yet, represents only the assessee’s work-in-progress (WIP), i.e., stock-in-trade, and not a purchase of any asset/s. In fact, even if it were so, i.e., on capital account, the interest on borrowed capital would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii).
HELD THAT:- (i) Administrative expenses & Employee's Remuneration - Any cost that adds value thereto, i.e., enables the bringing of the relevant inventory to the stage of its completion and location as at the year-end, is to be taken into account for the purpose. Administrative expenses, as it appears, are only general in nature, and even with regard to the employee’s remuneration, there is nothing to indicate that it represents an element of either direct cost of production or even of production overhead, which only would enable its inclusion as a part of the cost of production/construction. As such, being fixed (period) cost, these stand to be written off to the profit and loss account in the year of being incurred.
Entire addition to the returned income is accordingly deleted.
ii) Interest Expenditure- Deduction u/s 36 (1)(iii) - Allowed or not? - A project, or part thereof, may be partly sold or even remain unsold for quite some time after its completion. While revenue would stand to be booked only on the part, if any, sold, the interest cost would continue to be incurred on the entire capital, even as no corresponding gain inures in terms of value addition to the project, which stands in fact completed, so as to increase its cost by loading the said cost thereon. It is for these reasons that interest (financing) cost is normally considered as only a period (fixed) cost, and charged to the operating statement for the year in which the same is incurred.
Relying on the judgement of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION INDS. LTD. [2003 (1) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], interest cost is to allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii), irrespective of whether it stands incurred in relation to stock-in-trade or on capital account, as the said section draws no such distinction.
Decision in favour of Assessee.
Disclosure of Gross Profit - In the verification proceedings u/s.143(3), it was explained that the said project had been completed as at the year-end up to 34%, and that the profit was booked and returned following the project percentage method, disclosing a gross profit of 23% on the cost of production as capitalized during the year - HELD THAT:- Considering the said cost as includable in the project cost may have a direct bearing on the gross profit rate, and which may therefore stand to decline from the reported and accepted rate of 23%, and cannot be presumed be remain as such, i.e., unchanged. Thus, no adjustment to the disclosed gross profit rate, on account of any of three items of expenditure under reference, is required under the given facts and circumstances of the case.
Revenue Appeal dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 890 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eduction in the subsequent years available to the assessee cannot be withdrawn in the absence of the claim for Section 35D of the Act being set aside in the first year i.e. the year when it was examined and granted i.e. assessment year 2000-01. Further, the Tribunal has held that as expenses are of revenue nature, the issue itself becomes academic. In view of the fact that the order allowing amortization of share issue expenses under Section 35D for the first year, that is, the assessment year 2000-01 has been accepted by the department, the deduction for the subsequent years must follow as a matter of course as correctly held by the Tribunal. 10 In view of the above, according to us, the question as formulated can not be entertained as the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, these three appeals are dismissed on the both proposed question of law as formulated by the revenue. 11 In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 889 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2009 is therefore annulled. The assessee is requested to attend the assessment proceedings from time to time as and when required so as to enable the Assessing Officer to frame a judicious assessment.” o p /o p 14. A perusal of the same demonstrates that the CIT has not come to a conclusion nor has he given a finding on the order passed under Section 143(3) dt. 15.5.2009 by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. o p /o p Nor there is a finding that the order is prejudicial to the Revenue in these conclusions of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus we have no other alternative but to strike down the impugned order passed under Section 263 as the CIT neither has come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, nor that the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. o p /o p In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p 15. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th January, 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 888 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... into consideration the business expediency and other relevant factors. In the present case the assessee and its team went to a far away place for the purpose of TV serial shooting. The assessee had made cash payments to various parties, technicians, artists etc. for the period of 2 to 6 days under business compulsions. We find that the above payment was made under business compulsions and therefore by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the business expediency, we are of the opinion that section 40A(3) has no application to the facts of the assessee’s case. Insofar as the case law relied on by the learned DR is concerned, it has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we reverse the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 17th of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 887 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) of the Finance Act, 2012 passed by the Parliament, it has been provided that no Service Tax shall be levied or collected in respect of management or repair of roads, during the period on and from the 16th day of June, 2005 to the 26th day of July, 2009, both days inclusive, and refund shall be made of all such Service Tax which has been collected but would not have been so collected had the sub-section (1) been in force, at all material times. 5. The present case relates to the period between 16-6-2005 to 26-7-2009. In view of provision of Section 97(1) of the Finance Act, 2012, the petitioner is not liable to pay any Service Tax on the management and maintenance or repair of roads between 16-6-2005 to 26-7-2009, both dates inclusive and if any Service Tax had been collected it would be refunded. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid terms. The respondents shall pass suitable order amending/withdrawing/modifying the show cause notice.
-
2013 (1) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d into an international transaction. As the assessee has made comparison of transactions with AEs and Non-AEs for the same financial year, in our considered opinion there is no logic in accepting TPO's stand, who rejected the CUP method on the ground that there was difference in the dates of transaction with AEs and Non-AEs. When we compare the price charged by the assessee from its AEs with Non-AEs, it is palpable that no adjustment is required. It can be seen from page 35 of the paper book that the assessee charged price of Cyper Tech from third parties at ₹ 373.33 as against that charged from AEs at ₹ 381.28. Similar is the position as regards other products sold by the assessee to its AEs and non-AEs, which can be seen from pages 36 onwards of the paper book. In view of the above reasons we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 885 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... n 12AA & 80G of the Act, we have no option except to set aside the orders of CIT dated 21.06.2012 for refusal of registration under section 12AA of the Act and refusal of approval under section 80G of the Act. We direct the CIT to grant registration under section 12AA and renewal of approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA and for approval under section 80G of the Act.” 8. Since the facts are identical, we follow the above order of I.T.A.T. and in the light of that, similar directions are given to the CIT to grant registration under section 12AA and to grant approval under section 80G of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA and for grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (1) TMI 884 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Division Bench of this Court on 04.09.2012, wherein after considering Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Division Bench observed as under - “9. It can be gathered from the above discussion that the provision of Section 110 (2) in so far as the prescription of a time limit for holding seized goods, is deemed mandatory; the consequence of not issuing a show cause notice within the period or extended period specified is clearly spelt out to be that the ?goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized? (apparent from a combined reading of Section 110 (2) and its proviso). The corollary is not that the Customs authorities lose jurisdiction to issue show cause notice.” In the present case, the show cause notice has not been issued within the period of one year of the date of seizure, that is, upto 25.04.2012. As a result, the goods have to be released unconditionally. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition is allowed as above.
-
2013 (1) TMI 883 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee has been utilized in purchasing these shares as such money derived from sale of these share was his long term capital gain and not the income of the business. Similar controversy has been raised in the assessment year 2005-06 in respect of the assessee. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kanodia allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment of Atul Kanodia has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 631 of 2007 and the judgment in the case of the assessee has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 201 of 2010 by judgment dated 14.12.2012. The controversy has already been settled by this Court. The Senior Standing Counsel could not point out any distinguishing feature for not following the aforesaid judgments. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal has no force and is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 882 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submissions as submitted before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) further submits that the disallowance of ₹ 12,000/- made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 10. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A). 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that assessee has claimed th4e professional fees of ₹ 12,000/- out of the income from other sources. In the absence of any material to show as to how the professional fees of ₹ 12,000/- is allowable u/s 57 of the Act, we are of the view that the claim made by the assessee is devoid of any merits and accordingly the ground taken by the assessee is rejected. 12. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (1) TMI 881 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... /o p 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” o p /o p 6.3 Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of jurisdictional Tribunal, I direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s 54F. These grounds of appeal are allowed.” o p /o p 8. No specific error could be pointed out by the CIT/DR in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT/DR has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs V.R. Desai (supra) which has been considered by the Chennai ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.K.P. Elayarajan vs DCIT(supra) and then allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue in both the cases are dismissed. o p /o p 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013, at Chennai. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 880 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t because of the on-going proceedings for realization of the due amount by resorting to the coercive steps. 2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well, who submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner appears to be belated, in response to which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the I.A filed for condonation delay has already been considered and that the delay has been condoned. 3. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 I.A. for stay in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till orders are passed on Ext.P4 as aforesaid all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further steps.
-
2013 (1) TMI 879 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ient documentary evidence to prove that the cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 should be 150/- per sqyd.. o p /o p Assessee has submitted in this regard a certificate from Nagar Palika and Report from Land Revenue Inspector, copy of Sajra, copy of purchase deed, details of circle rate fixed by the State Governent. o p /o p These documents cogently prove that the assessee’s contention that rate of acquisition should be adopted as ₹ 150/- per sqyd. is proved. Since assessee has submitted so many documentary evidence, the onus has shifted from the assessee to the Assessing Officer. But the Assessing Officer has not discharged his onus to show any discrepancy/ falsity in such evidence. Under the circumstances, we do no find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), accordingly, we uphold the same. o p /o p 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 878 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bad debts - Held that:- in absence of any material to indicate any dishonest attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income, no penalty can be imposed - the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return - neither there is any concealment of income nor is there any material to indicate filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 877 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... he account of Welcare Hospital during the year under consideration was to the extent of ₹ 1,24,095. According to the ld.representative, merely because the Welcare Hospital has not accounted this payment it cannot be added in the hands of the taxpayer. We heard, Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR also. 6. Though the taxpayer claims that cash was received on supply of electrical goods from Welcare Hospital on day today basis no confirmation or document could be filed for receipt of cash. The taxpayer could not reconcile the accounts before the lower authorities. No such reconciliation was also filed before this Tribunal. In the absence of any material, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the lower authority has rightly made the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the taxpayer are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 11th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 876 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... rounds in the COs against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. 12. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed.” We have considered the above findings of the Coordinate Bench and also perused the grounds raised by the Revenue in both cases which turn out to be identical. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted assessee’s claim of depreciation. The same is, therefore confirmed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. C.O. No.125/Mds/2012 7. Since the Cross Objections filed by the assessee only support the order of the CIT(A), which we have confirmed, the objections are also dismissed. 8. To sum up, both appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 8th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 875 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... ely for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.” Section 40 (b) however places certain restrictions on the deductibility of amount of interest and remuneration payable to partners. The relevant clauses in the partnership deed do not violate the prescription of sec. 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, they are admissible for deduction u/s.37. In this view of the matter, it was imperative on the part of the assessee to work out the amount of profit correctly so as to claim right amount of profit for exemption. The assessee has deliberately suppressed the expenditure with a view to inflate the profit eligible for exemption. In our view, such course of action is not sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed and that of the AO restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed. Order pronounced on 24.01-2013
............
|
