|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1005 - ITAT CHENNAI
Rental income - Head of income - assessee’s income from incubation project as ‘business’ income or from ‘house property’ - Held that:- The hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of M/s. Elnet Technologies Ltd (2012 (11) TMI 671 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) has squarely decided the issue in favour of the assessee wherein it has been held that in case of a company providing software infrastructural facilities on lease in lieu of rent payment, the receipt is ‘business’ income instead of that from ‘house’ property. In the course of arguments, the Revenue has not been able to cite any distinguishing features. Accordingly, we rely upon the said decision and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.
Allowability of expenditure - Held that:- The assessee is entitled for the expenses in question. We also find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has already issued necessary directions to the Assessing Officer to allow ‘revenue’ expenditure and also to capitalize the expenses which are not in the nature of current repairs. In our opinion, since the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has issued appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the expenses, we affirm with the same and leave the Assessing Officer to act as directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
-
2013 (8) TMI 1004 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The undisputed facts are that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of ₹ 13,22,641/- during the year under consideration and claimed that it has incurred no expenditure for earning such exempt income. The Assessing Officer, by applying Rule 8D r.w.s 14A, computed the disallowance of expenditure relating to the exempt dividend income at ₹ 26,88,155/- and added the same to the income of the assessee.
On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 2% of the exempt dividend income.
The ld. DR could not point out any specific error in the above quoted order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1003 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Share transactions - capital gain or business income - Held that:- It is not in dispute that with respect to the very shares, which were sold during the assessment year in question, in the Assessment Year 2004-05, the same were treated as investment in shares. Under the circumstances, when in the immediate earlier year i.e. Assessment Year 2004-05 and with respect to the very shares, the Assessing Officer had accepted the same as investments in shares and when these very shares came to be sold by the assessee during the year under consideration, no error and/or illegality has been committed by the CIT(A) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and treating it as business income for the purpose of short term capital gain and long term capital gain
-
2013 (8) TMI 1002 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Nature of land - agricultural land - Held that:- We are of the view that findings in respect of distance of agriculture land, which is more than 8 kms from the municipal limit is based on appreciation of the certificate issued by the local authorities, revenue authorities etc.
It is not the case of the department that those certificates are incorrect or never issued by the above-mentioned departments.
The Land Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) had also mentioned the Survey No.95 Area 4.22 acre, Survey No.96/1 Area 1.20 acre and has mentioned that the land in question is about 10 kms. from the municipal limit and the population of the village is about 2000 persons. The assessee has also produced a certificate from the land Surveyor wherein it has been mentioned that the impugned land is situated at 9.09 kms. from the municipal limit. The assessee has also placed on record the google map. All these certificates clearly say that the impugned land is situated beyond 9 kms. from the from the municipal limit, therefore, as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the impugned agricultural land is situated in the revenue record of Village Lasudia Parmar whose population is about 2000 people, which is less than the condition mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act.
So far as the condition mentioned in sub-clause (b) of the aforesaid Section is concerned, from record it is clear that the impugned land is beyond the prescribed limit of 8 kms from the municipal limit.We are of the view that there is no mistake in the conclusion drawn in the impugned order.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1000 - ITAT MUMBAI
Expenses incurred on the issuance of such FCCBs - Held that:- expenditure on the issue of convertible debentures is admissible. We find that there is no qualitative difference between the issuance of debentures or bonds. Both fall in the realm of loan. In the light of these precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves deduction for this amount
Denial of deduction u/s 80-IB on duty drawback / DEPB - Held that:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case has denied similar deduction on DEPB in the past. This position was fairly admitted by the learned AR as well. However it was argued that the receipt of duty drawback to the extent of actual expenses should be allowed. In support of this contention the learned AR relied on some order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the direct judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Liberty India v. CIT [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT ] in which it has been held that duty drawback / DEPB are not derived from industrial undertaking and hence no deduction is available u/ss 80-I, 80-IA and 80-IB.
Denial of deduction u/s 80-IB on interest income on subsidy received under the Textile Upgradation Fund - Held that:- The authorities below did not allow deduction u/s 80-IB on subsidy received under TUF. We are convinced with the view point of the authorities below that such subsidy received on account of interest on loan borrowed for acquisition of plant and machinery cannot be considered as an income derived from industrial undertaking.
Interest under TUF scheme - revenue or capital receipt - Held that:- We find that there being a pure question of law as to whether such subsidy is a revenue or a capital receipt, can be taken up for consideration before the Tribunal for the first time. Since there is no adjudication by the authorities below on this point, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for examination and evaluation of this contention.
-
2013 (8) TMI 999 - ITAT CHENNAI
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have nowhere applied mind arriving at ‘satisfaction’ qua assessee’s plea that it had not incurred any expenditure in earning the impugned dividend income, we deem it fit to directing Assessing Officer to re-decide the matter after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 998 - ITAT INDORE
Addition made on account of difference in stock, admitted during survey, and declared in profit and loss account - Held that:- There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the learned CIT(A) duly verified different silver accounts which were submitted by the assessee during survey and the Assessing Officer overlooked the stock of silver/silver ornaments copies of which were made available at the time of survey. The correct excess stock of silver was 71.295 kms valued at ₹ 7,40,515/- which was offered by the assessee in its profit and loss account. We are also in agreement with the finding of the learned CIT(A) that so far as the shortage in gold ornaments is concerned, only profit embedded in the sale can be taken as income of the assessee. There is further uncontroverted finding that correct difference of income has been offered by the assessee in its profit and loss account. In view of these facts, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It is affirmed.
Disallowance made on account of interest expenses - Held that:- There is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that the same rate of interest was paid by the assessee in last year and no such disallowance was made. Even otherwise, unless and until corroborative material is brought on record, it is not expected from the Assessing Officer to conclude that the interest rate of 15% was too high. At the same time, the interest rate on secured loan from banks cannot be compared with interest rate on unsecured loan. The businessman knows his interest best. The Assessing Officer is not expected to sit in the chair of the businessman and decide the reasonableness of rate of interest that too without bringing any corroborative material on record. In view of these facts, on this ground also we find no justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A)
-
2013 (8) TMI 997 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Penalty levied u/s 271AA - international transaction entered upon by the assessee with its associate concern - Held that:- We are in conformity with the findings of CIT (Appeals) that the order levying penalty under section 271AA of the Act was passed in perfunctory manner without giving requisite show cause notice and without affording proper opportunity to the assessee. Further there is no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271AA of the Act even on the merits of the case as the Inspector deputed to inspect the record of the assessee had given a report that the assessee had maintained requisite documents. No reliance can be placed on the second report of the Inspector as the same was not confronted to the assessee. Even otherwise there is no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271AA of the Act for the default of not maintaining details as per clause (a), (h) and (l) of Form No.10D, which were not maintainable by the assessee. The international transaction entered upon by the assessee with its associate concern has been held to be at arms’ length and as such there is no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271AA of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 996 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account of damaged/expired goods - Held that:- It is practice in the pharmaceuticals business that some products have to be expired or damages and all the retailers are not able to sell the goods within expiry of date, even branded goods some time expired. The appellant had shown expiry of goods’ percentage more than 4%. During the year, goods expired was ₹ 7,94,441/- and goods replaced at ₹ 1,46,60,484/- which is 2.46%, is reasonable. Keeping in view the past history of the assessee, the ld. A.O. had not brought on record any evidence that the appellant had made sale outside the books. Even, no evidence during the course of search were found, which was relevant to A.Y. 2005-06. The Settlement Commission also accepted the assessee’s disclosure of further any additional disclosure on this issue
Addition on account of non-genuine payment to M/s. Saffroys - Held that:- As the appellant had filed confirmation before the A.O. with signature and PAN no., if she has any doubt on confirmation, she should have verified this confirmation from her counter part at Kolkata. Ld. A.O. had given sufficient power under the IT Law, which has not been used by her. In absence of any contrary evidence against the appellant, the addition cannot be confirmed.
Addition on account of bogus purchases - Held that:- The search was relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, whatever evidences found during the course were relevant to A.Y. 2005-06 not 2006-07. The appellant had furnished the confirmation with PAN no. with full address of the purchase parties. On the basis of past history, no addition can be made without brining out any contrary evidence on record. If the A.O. has any doubt about the genuineness of the purchase, she should have inquire directly form the supplier or made any inquiry as per law. The ld. A.O. had not made out the case on the basis of evidence. The addition was made on the basis of evidence found in past, cannot be sustained
-
2013 (8) TMI 995 - ITAT JAIPUR
Proceedings u/s 201 - Held that:- The survey proceedings and assessment proceedings are two different and distinct proceedings . The letter dated 14-01- 2009 was in continuation to the information gathered on 29-12-2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that proceedings u/s 201 of the Act was initiated. A bare reading of Section 201 makes it clear that it is invoked as a consequence of failure to deduct or pay tax. Therefore, in our considered view, the information gathered during survey proceeding and on the basis of such information, if the AO finds that assessee was required to deduct tax and the assessee has not deducted the tax or has not paid the tax after deduction then he would be empowered to invoke the provisions of Section 201 of the Act by issuing show cause notice for initiation of proceedings u/s 201 of the Act. Hence, the point of time when the AO finds that the assessee was required to deduct tax and has not deducted or paid consequence thereof, he issues the show cause notice to the assessee would be starting point for reckoning limitation for the purpose of Section 201 of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the ground raised by the assessee and the same is hereby rejected. - Decided against assesse.
-
2013 (8) TMI 991 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rejection of books of accounts - Held that:- It would be appropriate that the issue is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits in respect of the issue pertaining to the rejection/reliability of the books of accounts produced by the assessee after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee for defending his case.
Disallowance of interest expense - Held that:- We find that we have set aside the issue of disallowance of interest in the case of the assessee to the file of the AO,while deciding the appeals filed by her for the AYs.1005-06 to 2007-08. Following our above referred order,we restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As a result, appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 1998-99 and 2000-01 stand partly allowed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 990 - ITAT AGRA
Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- No definite finding of fact or any contrary material has been brought on record to prove that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence any detailed discussion, any material on record, we are of the view that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case at estimate of income, would not be warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (8) TMI 989 - ITAT JODHPUR
NP rate sustained at 7% subject to the depreciation and interest to the third parties - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that certain discrepancies were pointed out by the AO in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee in his regular course of business. Therefore, the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act were applicable and the books were liable to be rejected. When the books were rejected, the only way left to determine the income is estimation by applying the GP rate or NP rate. In the present case, the AO applied NP rate of 12.5%, which was reduced to 7% by the ld. CIT(A). The said estimates were without any basis or comparable case. It is also an admitted fact that in such type of cases, past history or comparable case is to be considered to estimate the income, but preference is to be given to the past history of the assessee’s own case. In the instant case, it is noticed that the NP rate shown by the assessee for the year under consideration was at 3.26% in comparison to 3.08% in the immediately preceding year. Therefore, keeping in view the past history of the assessee’ own case, it can be said that the NP rate shown by the assessee was progressive, so, no addition was called for even after rejecting the books of accounts.
Addition made by treating the FDR interest as income from other sources - Held that:- , it is not the case of the department that the FDRs were purchased by the assessee from surplus money, which was lying idle and had been deposited in the bank for the purpose of earning interest. On the contrary, the FDRs were purchased from out of money, which were necessary to get bank guarantee which was assessed to get the contract and there was a direct link with the purchase of FDRs and the contract awarded to the assessee. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the AO rightly taxed the interest income as income from other sources. We, therefore set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to treat the amount in question as business income.
-
2013 (8) TMI 988 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d Tribunal’s decision. Ld. DR of the Revenue supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 25. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that this issue is now squarely covered in favour of assessee by the Tribunal’s decision cited by Ld AR of the assessee and no difference in facts could be pointed out by Ld. DR of the Revenue and hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. Respectfully following this decision, this addition is deleted. Ground No.1 of CO is allowed. 26. Ground NO.2 of the CO is regarding charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B 234C and 234D. Now it is settled position of law that charging of interest is consequential. We order accordingly. 27. In the result, CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 28. In combined result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and CO of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2013 (8) TMI 987 - ITAT JODHPUR
Addition on the basis of admission obtained in the statement recorded u/s 133A - Held that:- here is a circular of CBDT No. 286/2/2003, and dated 11/03/2003, which restrain the survey team from taking forcible surrender. The mere fact that the survey team collected cheques in respect of advance tax payable on such surrender, is self evidence of possible pressure which may have been exerted on the assessee.The assessee has filed detailed working of stock available on the date of survey, the copies of which are again enclosed in AR’s paper book on page 28 to 36. The A.O. has made a addition of ₹ 25,68,277/- solely on the basis of the statement recorded at the time of the survey. This addition has been reduced by a sum of ₹ 3,24,000/- by correcting mistakes pointed out in the inventory, and has been sustained at ₹ 22,46,217/-. There are a raft of decision to the effect that solely on the basis of admission obtained in the statement recorded u/s 133A no addition can be made. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of interest paid to the creditors - Held that:- In fact a sum of ₹ 2.5 lacs was paid to S.P. Jain Management Institute, Mumbai, for the admission of his son in MBA. Later this amount was referred to the assessee who debited the same in his books in the name of S.P. Jain Management Institute instead of debiting his capital account. So the authorities guessed that this amount has been availed of without paying interest and therefore, an addition of ₹ 30,000/- as notional interest was made. Thus it is undisputedly found that there was a opening capital of ₹ 55,97,139/-and closing capital was of ₹ 75,52,870/- (APB – 22) on which no interest has been claimed. In these circumstances, the charging of notional interest is not justified. The A.O. has not even been able to establish nexus between the two. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (8) TMI 986 - ITAT MUMBAI
Treatment of income from sale of shares - Held that:- As income from sale of shares has been consistently accepted as short term capital gain in preceding and succeeding years, we see no reason for observing departure for the current year
-
2013 (8) TMI 985 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e having PE in USA. Nevertheless, the expression “attributable” even if held to be equivalent to the expression “effectively connected” in the light of the commentary by Klaus Vogel, referred to above, then the case of the Assessee would stand squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Clough Engineering Ltd. (supra). Following the same, we hold that the interest income on income tax refund is to be charged to tax only under Article 11(2) of the Indo-USA DTAA and not under Article 11(5) thereof.” 5. Following the decision of this Special Bench in case of Clough Engineering Ltd. as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Bechtel International Inc. we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) qua this issue is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 8th day of August 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 984 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... . Commissioner of Incometax for denial of recognition under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act is that dominant object of the assessee-society is to run/establish hospitals etc and to impart medical treatment to poor and senior citizens. But he has not brought out anything on record to establish that the assessee-society was ever engaged in any activity other than charitable. Undoubtedly organizing Yoga classes, one of the objects of the assessee-society, is also charitable in nature. Since the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has not brought out anything on record to demonstrate that the assessee-society was engaged in non-charitable activity, denial of recognition under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act is not proper. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax and direct him to grant recognition under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act to the assessee-society. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.8.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 983 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB - Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08
the assessee’s eligible undertaking itself was independently carrying out the complete activity i.e. from mixing, grinding till the pelletisation. The raw materials once consumed cannot be reconverted into the same position. Its utility gets changed. The prime raw materials such as, maize, soya oil, rice bran, etc. can no more be regarded to be the rice bran, soya oil, maize.
-
2013 (8) TMI 982 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... the preliminary objection raised by the assessee and direct the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act. In this view of the matter, we find no justification to deal with the other factual issues raised by the assessee. 6. So far as denial of approval under section 80G of the Act is concerned, we find that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has denied approval under section 80-G of the Act following his order denying registration under section 12AA of the Act. Since we have directed the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act in the foregoing paras, the very foundation for denying the approval under section 80G of the Act thus ceased to hold good in the law. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax is directed to grant approval under section 80G of the Act to the assessee. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.8.2013.
............
|
