|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 667 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1424 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Order passed u/s. 263 annulled - Held that:- As the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act dated 29.3.2011 was quashed by the Tribunal for A.Y. 2006-07, there is no surviving order so as to pass consequential order in terms of section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the CIT(A) is justified in annulling the assessment order dated 30.6.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. The ground taken by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1423 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Set off the loss on account of forfeiture of licence fee against income - Held that:- Since the assessee was allotted the licence by the Excise Department, which was later on transfer to one Shankar Lal Patidar but the said licence was cancelled by the Excise Department and the amount of licence fees deposited by the petitioner was forfeited by the Excise Department, the assessee is entitled to set off on account of such forfeiture.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1421 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- We find that the case squarely falls within the parameters of "ignorance", even by the CA, who conducted audit and tax audit. In such a case, the bonafide of the assessee gets explained automatically. In these circumstances, the penalty, in our opinion cannot be levied on the assessee. In so far as the bonafides of the CA firm is concerned, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the fact that certain "silly mistakes" can never be ruled out. We, therefore, cannot hold even the CA to be guilty of committing a mistake, because, the relevant expression was inserted in the relevant assessment year only which went unnoticed by everyone.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1419 - ITAT PUNE
Validity of assessment - Held that:- the assessment of the assessee has been completed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act hence, the assessee should not have any grievance.
Addition towards unaccounted sales - Held that:- We find that except the estimate nothing is there on record to suggest that the assessee has invested ₹ 4,50,000/- as seed capital. At the same time unaccounted investment cannot be ruled out also. We, therefore, sustain the addition to ₹ 1,00,000/- and accordingly the assessee gets the partial relief.
Addition on the basis of the DVO report - Held that:- We find that this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT [2009 (10) TMI 569 - Supreme Court of India ] wherein held Matter could not refer to the Departmental Valuation Officer without the books of account being rejected.
Cash seized during the course of search - whether cash seized should have been adjusted against the advance tax payable in view of Sec. 132B of the Act and no interest should have been levied u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act - Held that:- The Learned Counsel fairly admitted that no specific request was made by the assessee for adjusting the seized cash. In our opinion, if the assessee has not requested the Department for adjustment of the seized cash, in such situation the assessee cannot escape from the levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act.
Addition towards the low house hold expenditure - Held that:- Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s. 154 on 03-02-2010 and reduced the addition as there was a mistake in the tabulation. The Ld. CIT(A) gave the relief by 50% reducing the addition. It is true that the addition on account of short house hold expenditure is not based on any concrete material but the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) are quite elaborate to support his order and we accordingly sustain the addition.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1418 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10AA - Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the trading activity carried on by the SEZ unit of the respondent – assessee is to be considered as “services” eligible for exemption under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act by relying on the definition of “services” as per SEZ Rules.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1417 - ITAT MUMBAI
Validity of re-assessment proceedings - approval granted by Commissioner of Income Tax instead of Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner - Held that:- It is duly recorded in the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the AO had obtained the approval of Commissioner of Income Tax on 31/3/2009. In support the assessee had also filed a letter issued by Commissioner of Income Tax, which is reproduced in the above part of this order. Therefore, there remains no dispute on the fact that re-assessment proceedings have been initiated on the approval received by the AO from Commissioner of Income Tax and the said approval was not given of Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. There is also no dispute that the approval has been issued after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. If these facts are undisputed, then it has to be held that the reassessment proceedings based on an approval granted by Commissioner of Income Tax instead of Additional Commissioner / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are required to be held to be invalid. The relevant portion of aforementioned decision has already been reproduced. Relying thereon, we decide this issue in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1416 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional sale consideration received in respect of property - Undisclosed income - Held that:- The law on the subject is well-settled. The Revenue where it seeks to make an addition as representing undisclosed income of the Assessee, may do so on the basis of reliable material. An addition cannot be made on surmises or on the basis of hypothetical assumption.
In the present case, the finding of fact by the first appellate Authority was that there was no supporting evidence available other than the seized e-mail to arrive at a conclusion that the amount of ₹ 6,60,00,000/- was an additional undisclosed income. The Tribunal, in appeal, has accepted the view of the CIT(A), while holding that the additions have been correctly deleted. We do not find that the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the first appellate Authority and which have been confirmed by the Tribunal, suffer from any perversity to warrant interference in appeal under Section 260A
-
2013 (10) TMI 1415 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- AO was not justified in initiating the reopening proceedings in the present case merely on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the department, without reference to any document or statement in absence of which, the information could not be regarded as a material or evidence that prime facie showed or established nexus or link which disclosed escapement of income. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below in this regard hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case was not as per the requirement of section 47 of the Act and is thus invalid. The assessment framed in furtherance to the said notice u/s 148 of the Act is thus quashed as null and void in consequence.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1414 - ITAT PANAJI
Revision u/s 263 - nature of expenditure - Held that:- The CIT(A) was bound to give a clear-cut finding whether the expenditure incurred by the Assessee is a capital expenditure or whether it is a revenue expenditure and whether the expenditure has accrued during the year or not. The order passed by the CIT(A), in our opinion, is cryptic and has not dealt with the issue involved. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of CIT(A) with the direction that the CIT(A) should re-decide this issue on merit whether the expenditure incurred by the Assessee is a capital expenditure or whether it is a revenue expenditure and if it is a revenue expenditure, whether the expenditure has accrued during the year or not after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the Assessee. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose.
Non deduction of tds - Held that:- The facts of the present case, are governed by section 40(a)(i ) of the Act 1961. Order passed by the Assessing Officer, in our view, is legal, proper and in accordance with the Scheme of Act 1961. In view of which we have taken in the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the Order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1411 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Assessee is entitled for deduction under S.80IA of the Act on the profit computed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the project in Cauvery Basin, Trichy(Tamil Nadu) as the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor as presumed by the Revenue. The circular issued by the Board, relied on by learned counsel for the assessee, clearly indicate that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA (4) of the Act. The department is not correct in holding that the assessee is a mere contractor of the work and not a developer.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1410 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit - Held that:- The companies from which the share application money had been received by the assessee-company were genuinely existing and the identity of the individual investors were also established and they had confirmed the fact of making investment, the finding that assessee had discharged initial burden and addition under Section 68 could not be sustained
-
2013 (10) TMI 1405 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Opportunity of bearing heard - essence of principles of natural justice - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be restored back to the file of the AO to be decided de novo as per law, needless to say after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We, therefore, restore this issue back to the file of the AO to be decided afresh as per law after analyzing the facts of the case. Side by side, we hereby direct the assessee to present before learned AO either in person or through an authorized representative within 30 days on receipt of this order and assist the AO in all respect to get this appeal finalized at an early date. In any case, AO is at liberty to proceed as per law
-
2013 (10) TMI 1403 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) claim allowed
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Admittedly Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules is not applicable for the A.Y. 2008-09 and this legal position has been clarified by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Now the next question is whether there, any justification to apply Sec. 14A on the facts on this particular case. As per the record, the assessee’s interest free funds are more than the investment made in the shares of the subsidies. We, therefore, concur with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no justification for making the disallowance at least in this year by invoking Sec. 14A of the Act.
Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - exemption u/s. 10A - Held that:- In the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) the issue was in respect of computation of the profits and gains derived from export for the purpose determined the exemption u/s. 10A. In the said case, disallowance of the PF/ESIC payments had been made because of the statutory provisions i.e. Sec. 43B which was in respect of employer’s contribution and Sec.36(1)(v) r.w.s. 2(24) (x) in the case of employee’s contribution which have been deemed to be the assessee’s income. The Hon'ble High Court held that the disallowance was added back by the Assessing Officer which has increased in the business profits of the assessee and exemption u/s. 10A is allowable with reference to such enhanced income. We, therefore, following the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra) allow the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the said addition for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1402 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
As CIT(A) has passed ex parte order we restore all these appeals back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo appellate order after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessees are directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A).
-
2013 (10) TMI 1401 - ITAT COCHIN
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The non application of mind by the assessing officer to the material available on record with regard to the amount recovered by the police amounts to an error which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. No doubt, the addition made in the hands of Shri Abdul Rasheed was deleted by the CIT(A). But this fact has to be examined by the assessing officer and whether the assessee has explained the source for the above said money or not has to be verified and reasons recorded in the assessment order itself. Since the assessing officer has not verified the source for the above said amount, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Administrative Commissioner has rightly exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act
-
2013 (10) TMI 1399 - ITAT MUMBAI
Claim for bad debts written-off u/s. 36(1)(vii) denied - Held that:- The amounts that have been written-off, as detailed in the Paper Book, are specific bills or part of specific bills raised by the assessee, which have not been collected from such parties. Therefore, merely because assessee had dealing with that particular concern or that the concerns are otherwise financially viable does not distract from the fact that the amounts in question, which are individually of small values, were specific bills of the assessee or part thereof, which were outstanding for a long period of time and therefore considering the aforesaid aspect, on facts, the judgment of the assessee of treating them as ‘irrecoverable’ cannot be faulted. Thus, in our considered opinion, the claim of the assessee for writing-off of such amounts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act as ‘irrecoverable’ was fair and proper.The entire claim of the assessee for write-off of bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to ₹ 40,89,838/- was justified and the CIT(A) ought to have allowed it, instead of restricting it to ₹ 22,56,998/- only.
Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that:- Ostensibly, the expenditure in question does not pertain to the period under consideration, which is evident from the invoice raised by M/s. Safire Hotels Ltd.. There is also no material on record to show that the liability represented by the invoice of M/s. Safire Hotels Ltd. dated 20.01.2006 crystallized during the year so as to be deductible in computing assessee’s income for the year under consideration following the mercantile system of accounting. In the course of hearing, it was specifically put to the learned counsel for the assessee to show as to in what manner the liability crystallized during the year and not in the preceding assessment year as sought to be canvassed by the Revenue based on the date of the invoice raised by M/s. Safire Hotels Ltd.. No satisfactory explanation has been rendered before us and therefore we deem it fit and proper to sustain the action of the lower authorities in disallowing the impugned claim being a prior period expenditure.
Disallowance of legal and professional charges - Held that:- The matter be re-visited by the Assessing Officer after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to produce all the relevant material in support of the impugned expenditure. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall consider the submissions and material put-forth by the assessee on its merits and thereafter adjudicate this aspect afresh as per law. We may add here that if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and proceeds to make a disallowance, the same shall not exceed a sum of ₹ 7,42,435/-, i.e. the amount sustained by the CIT(A) in the impugned order
-
2013 (10) TMI 1398 - ITAT COCHIN
TDS u/s 194C - Demand u/s 201(1) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- We are of the view that the assessing officer has failed to bring any material on record to show that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194C of the Act in respect of building construction. Under these circumstances, in our view, the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the demand raised u/s 201(1) and interest charged u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of building construction.
The matter relating to deduction of tax at source from commission payments requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. The Ld A.R also sought an opportunity to furnish necessary details before the AO. With regard to the rent payments also, the Ld A.R sought an opportunity. Since the matter relating to the commission payments requires fresh examination, in the interest of substantial justice, the assessee may be given one more opportunity to furnish the details of rent payments also. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in all the three years in respect of the above said two payments and restore them to the file of the assessing officer for making fresh examination. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the details that may be called for by the assessing officer, failing which the AO is free to take decision on the basis of available facts.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1395 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Benefit u/s. 10A - Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 as can be seen from the order of the DRP, though they have accepted the fact that the Chennai unit is not formed by reconstruction of the Hyderabad unit, but, they ultimately held that Chennai Unit and Hyderabad Unit are not two distinct and independent units. However, on perusal of the aforesaid order of the coordinate Bench, we find that the issue in dispute has been set at rest and decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the decision of the coordinate Bench, we allow the ground of the assessee and direct the AO to allow benefit u/s. 10A of the Act to the Chennai Unit.
Amount of statutory disallowance has to be considered as business profit eligible for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act.
Communication charges, insurance charges and reimbursement of expenses attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India, are to be reduced from the export turnover then the same should as well be reduced from total turnover while computing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1392 - ITAT COCHIN
Written down value of the cost of construction as ‘current repair’ - Held that:- 'Current repair’ is an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of maintaining the machinery, building, etc. used for the purpose of business. It is not a case of an expenditure incurred for the purpose of doing the business. The assessee claims the written down value of the cost of construction as current repair. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the cost of construction of the building or its written down value cannot be allowed as ‘current repair’ under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1391 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - MAT - computation of income was made under Section 115JB - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the Assessee was taxed under Section 115JB of the Act and not under the normal provisions of the Act as under the normal provisions of the Act, no tax was payable by the Assessee. It is also a fact that even after the additions of ₹ 46 lacs made in the quantum proceedings, tax was still payable on the basis of book profits. We find that the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.[2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has concluded that when computation of income was made under Section 115JB and concealment if any did not lead to tax evasion at all and therefore penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee
........
|
