|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 753
Comparison - Arms length price Comparability of price with the chosen company - whether Assessee is in merely functional advisory consultancy service without any risk to its sister companies Held that:- Apropos assessee's contention that assessee is in merely functional advisory consultancy service without any risk cannot be accepted as in preceding two years the ITAT [2012 (10) TMI 779 - ITAT, DELHI] has held that it is in marketing services which carry elements of risk and the assessee's services are to be treated as marketing services.
Relying upon the decision in the case of MCI Com India (P.) Ltd[2012 (10) TMI 790 - ITAT DELHI], it has been held that companies like EIL, Rites, Wapsos and TCE are engineering companies and provide end to end solutions and therefore they cannot be compared with those assessee who were into providing marketing support services to the parent company. They were held to be functionally not comparable with thee engineering companies - Therefore, they are to be excluded - Matter to go back to the file of AO /TPO who will determine the T.P. adjustments by excluding Vapi and WAPCOS comparables.
Rate of depreciation on computers Assessee charged depreciation @ 60% - Held that:- It is well settled that computers and peripherals are eligible for depreciation @ 60%. Besides assessee's opening WDV cannot be disturbed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 752
Royalty income - sale of Microsoft software products to the Indian distributors selling/licensing of software through independent distributors to the end users under the End User License Agreement (EULA). MS Corp is the sole owner of intellectual property rights vested in Microsoft software. It has granted exclusive license to manufacture and distribute Microsoft products to one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, M/s Gracemac (now merged with MOL Corporation), which, in turn, granted similar non-exclusive rights to its wholly owned subsidiaries, Microsoft Operations Pte.Ltd., Singapore (MO Singapore) to manufacture Microsoft products in Singapore and distribute such products in Asia (excluding non-English language products in China and Taiwan). The assessee has been appointed as a distributor of Microsoft products in India by MO Singapore.
Held that:- MRSC reproduced certain software products and distributed the same through chain of distributors in India. Therefore, the very appointment of distributors by MRSC in India, had business connection in India. But, MRSC cannot be taxed again on the same income by way of royalty for exploitation of same rights which had been assessed in the hands of Gracemac, otherwise it would result in double taxation -Decision in the case of Gracemac Corpn. and Microsoft Corpn. Versus ADIT [2010 (10) TMI 583 - ITAT, DELHI] followed. Decided in favor of Assessee.
Penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act Held that:- As income has not been held to be assessable in the hands of the assessee, no justification in levy of penalty, therefore, the order of the CIT (A) deleting the penalty is upheld on the ground that as the income itself is not assessable in the hands of the assessee, there is no question of levy of penalty.
-
2013 (8) TMI 751
Revenue or Capital expenditure - Expenditure on renovation work - CIT allowed depreciation - Whether the said expenditure incurred by the assessee to renovate the said premises is to be allowed as capital expenditure or as a revenue expenditure - Held that:- On perusal of the agreement entered by the assessee, it is observed from the Clause 3.1 that none of the party is entitled to terminate this agreement during the said lock-in-period of 24 months beginning from 9.2.2007 till 8.2.2009. The above terms and conditions of the agreement itself establishes that the first lease agreement entered into by the assessee with its sister concern, a partnership firm to take the said premises on rent on monthly rent of ₹ 3000/- and thereafter spent the said amount of ₹ 59,65,000/- in the Financial Year relevant to the year under consideration and let out the said premises at monthly rent of ₹ 15,00,000/- appears to be a colourable device - expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for complete renovation of the building to suit the requirement of licensee - Said expenditure cannot be said to be a revenue expenditure but it is a capital expenditure giving enduring benefits to the assessee in the form of regular receipt of monthly rent and interest free refundable security deposits - CIT(A) has rightly held that the said expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the premises under consideration for complete renovation to suit the requirements of licencee is a capital expenditure and the assessee is entitled to depreciation - Explanation to section 32(1) of the Act also stipulates that all the expenditures incurred by the assessee in relation to lease premises for renovation or extension or improvement is entitled to depreciation as is shown by the assessee - Decided against Assessee.
Disallowance of expenditure incurred on repairs to Air conditioner - Held that:- expenditure has been incurred by the assessee towards cost of new compressor and to replace old damaged one, therefore, no new asset has come into existence. The said expenditure is revenue in nature as expenditure has been incurred to replace the damaged compressors of existing Air- conditioners - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 744
Disallowance the interest paid at the rate of difference between two average rates (of borrowing funds and lending funds from and to sister concerns) without going into details of utilization of funds borrowed and the purpose of giving of loans Held that:- AO has not mentioned anything in the assessment order as to under which provision, he has made addition of the differential interest rate - AO has not brought out any detailed facts on record proving nexus of funds borrowed with the funds given as loan to establish that the borrowed funds were diverted at lesser rate of interest to sister concern or other than business purposes - On the face of these findings of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) even the part addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified - CIT(A) even should not have sustained the part addition because the AO has not pointed out as to how the conditions of section 36(1)(iii) have been violated in this case Decided against the Revenue.
In the case under consideration, the case of the A.O. is that there is a loss on account of interest paid and received. The CIT(A) has also wrongly accepted the A.O.'s view without considering the section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The loss in the interest account was on account of different rates charged from different parties on loans and advances taken and loans and advances given. For allowing deduction under section 36(1)(iii), it is to be seen whether conditions stated in section 36(1)(iii) has been satisfied or not. In the case under consideration, the assessee has satisfied all the conditions that the borrowed fund was used for the purpose of business as prescribed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Also, it was not the case of the A.O. that the borrowed fund was not utilised for the purpose of business of the assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 743
Re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act Late filing of return Held that:- There is no denial of the fact that assessee has taxable income and even admitted the same under provision of section 115JB. The return of income also was not filed in time and return filed was beyond time limits permitted so an invalid one. - as the assessee has not furnished return of income eventhough has taxable income, we uphold the proceedings under section 147. The grounds are rejected. - Decided against the assessee.
Sale of depreciable asset - Benefit of Indexation - assessee claimed that the assessee has not claimed any depreciation from assessment year 2000-01 and so provision of section 50 are not applicable Held that:- contention of assessee not acceptable - Reliance has been placed upon the Hon'ble Kerala high Court in the case of CIT vs. Sakthi Metal Depot [2010 (1) TMI 659 - Kerala High Court] and Chhabria Trust vs. ACIT [2003 (5) TMI 479 - ITAT MUMBAI] - From the year 2000-01 assessee neither filed returns nor offered income under 'house property', so as to consider that asset was not used for business - , the contention of the assessee that asset was deemed to be 'capital asset' and not 'business asset' cannot be accepted. - Decided against the assessee.
Interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D - Interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D cannot be levied as the assessee is a notified person and the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act 1992 will prevail Held that:- Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory Decided against the Assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 742
Notice u/s 148 - Reasons to be recorded borrowed satisfaction - Held that:- ITO, Agra was not having jurisdiction over the assessee, therefore, should not have recorded the reasons for reopening of assessment and further, he was having no reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment because the order of ADM, Agra has not reached finality on admission of writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court.
The reasons which are not in accordance with law have been recorded at Agra by the ITO, who was not authorized to do so, as was having no jurisdiction over the assessee and the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee at Aligarh did not do anything with regard to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings and has not recorded any reasons for re-assessment proceedings and merely acted on the borrowed satisfaction.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in the case of Signature Hotels P. Ltd. vs. ITO,[ 2011 (7) TMI 361 - Delhi High Court] ; Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., [2008 (5) TMI 276 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT].
-
2013 (8) TMI 741
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - concealment of income - AO rejected to books of accounts since 90% of expenses paid in cash and not verifiable - AO applied the net profit rate @ 3.1% instead of 2.1% - Held that:- In the penalty order, the AO did not mention whether he has imposed the penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Gujrat High court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT, [2006 (1) TMI 71 - GUJARAT High Court] , wherein it has been held that it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee, it has been held in the present case that levy of penalty on estimate of income be cancelled.
There is 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 - 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 favor of Assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 740
Unexplained deposit(investment) in the bank - source of cash deposited in bank - sale of property by the assessee for Rs. 56,78,751 - sale deed was executed by the GPA holder for a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000 - Held that:- Since this sale deed was not executed by the assessee she can not be said to have the knowledge that the sale deed was executed only for Rs. 17,50,000/-. No fault can be found with the issue of Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of Shri Ravinder Kumar only after receipt of full consideration. The fact of payment of cash also becomes clear from the copy of affidavit filed before the lower authorities
When these facts regarding execution of sale deed at lower amount came to the knowledge of the assessee, assessee's husband filed a complaint on 14.11.2008 with the Tehsildar, Naraingarh. Copy of this complaint was marked to the Chief Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax also. On the basis of this complaint, action was taken by the Registering authority which becomes clear from the order of the Collector (translated copy of the same is available at page 48 to 51 and 52 to 58 of the paper book). The Collector has clearly held that upon Inspector of adjoining area that though registered sale deeds were executed on the collector rate but the same was less than the prevalent market rate. This clearly shows that the assessee was taken for a ride and the cash portion paid to the assessee by the buyer was not declared and whatever steps the assessee could have taken, have been taken by the assessee to report the matter to the authorities.
The cash has been received by the assessee on sale of agricultural land and the same has been deposited in the bank. - Source proved - No addition.
-
2013 (8) TMI 739
Treatment of short term capital gain as business income - investment in shares Assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Urmi Plastics which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC, pouches and tubing - Apart from business income, assessee also showed capital gain income both under the head long term and short term for share transactions Assessee's share transactions are to be considered as trading transactions assessed both short term capital gain and long term capital gain offered by the assessee as business income - Held that:- Assessee was involved in share transactions in earlier years and also in later years. Considering the transactions and submissions of the assessee, the same cannot be treated as business income as assessee had no borrowed funds, no set up to do share transactions as a trading activity - Coupled with the fact that the assessee has neither claimed benefit of opening and closing stock, nor AO disturbed the working of the assessee except treating the gain as business income, income declared by the assessee as short term capital gain can not be treated as business income.
Transaction to be treated as short term or long term capital gain - Assessee got the shares transferred to demat account as on 31.03.2005 and sold as on 18.04.2005 - There is no verifiable evidence to establish whether the assessee purchased shares on 02.04.04 as claimed Held that:- Assessee purchased the shares and transferred them into demat account on 31.03.05 - Gain earned by the assessee can be brought to tax as capital gain but as short term capital gain, as there is evidence of purchase as on 31.03.05 and sale as on 18.04.05 - A.O. is directed to treat gains as short term capital gain and tax accordingly.
Commission amount on presumption and notion for computing tax - Commission paid at 5% for arranging long term capital gain Held that:- The transaction is neither proved as an arranged one and nor there is evidence on record that the assessee arranged transaction by paying any commission. The presumptions cannot be made while bringing an amount to tax and no notional amount can be brought to tax Deletion of commission amount as there is no evidence of assessee paying any commission so to sustain the addition so made.
-
2013 (8) TMI 738
Revision - Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 - According to CIT, A.O. was duty bound u/s.68 of the Act to do the enquiry of the information received from the FTD before passing its orders, and that in fact was also in substance the directions by the FTD vide its order dated 04.02.2011, and which he did not clearly do, passing the order the very next day. His order was, therefore, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Held that:- A.O. was himself of the considered view that further enquiry is required, having sought materials for the same, though was unable to, in the exigencies of the case, verify and examine the same. In fact, the hon'ble court itself clarifies therein that the CIT could establish that the facts on record or the inference drawn from the facts on record per se justify and mandate further enquiry or investigation by the A.O., which had not been conducted by him - Mandate of s. 68 of the Act remaining unsatisfied.
As per the decision in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 633 - Delhi High Court] wherein it has been clarified that the argument of lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry cannot be employed where the A.O. has taken one of the possible views, showing his application of mind on the issue - The argument as regards inadequate enquiry predicates on non-application of mind, so that where, therefore, proper application of mind is reflected, the argument of lack of enquiry would not hold. The enquiry, or its absence, even as explained earlier, is purely a matter of fact, so that the decision turns once again on facts - There has been a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 in the instant case Appeal allowed Decided in favor of Assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 737
Disallowance of exemption u/s 54F - investment in residential house - The dispute is with regard to the area of the land which is required for convenient enjoyment of 254.94 sq.mts of residential house. - Deposit in capital gain deposit scheme - date of completion of the building.- Held that:- the land appurtenant to the residential house has to be determined with regard to the locality where the residential house is situated, the social status of the individual assessee, profession of the individual and other factors for proper and convenient enjoyment of the residential house. - 5 cents of land determined by the CIT(A) is very less in the State of Kerala. - matter remitted back to AO for reconsideration.
Computation of Capital Gains - Expenditure incurred towards development of the land which was sold and brokerage paid to the extent of Rs.11 lakhs - Held that:- when the assessee withdrew the claim before the assessing officer by a letter dated 16-12- 2010, the same cannot be reagitated either before the CIT(A) or before this Tribunal.
Deduction u/s 54B - No capital asset was subjected to agricultural operation - Held that:- Merely because the assessee's brother has not made any claim u/s 54B that cannot be a reason for disallowing the claim of the assessee. When the assesee has produced certain material before this Tribunal and claimed that the land was subjected to cultivation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has to examine the documents independently and record finding whether the land in question is subjected to cultivation or not? Therefore, the omission of the assessee's brother to claim deduction u/s 54B cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the lower authorities are set aide and the issue is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall reconsider the issue in the light of additional evidence filed by the assessee before this Tribunal and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 736
Denial of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act assessee Society is running educational institute - alleged that assessee did not specify the purpose of accumulation in Form 10B - Held that:- Assessee has accumulated income for the specific purpose and for which the funds have been used accordingly in subsequent years - assessee has applied the accumulation of funds as specified which were in accordance with the object of the trust disallowance set aside Following decision of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range - 1, Aligarh Versus Jamia Urdu [2012 (10) TMI 255 - ITAT, AGRA] - Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance under section 40A(3) - Held that:- As CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that the income of the Institution is exempt under section 10(22) the disallowance under section 40A(3) became academic - Following decision of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (A. O.) Range-1, Aligarh. Versus Jamia Urdu, [2012 (10) TMI 255 - ITAT, AGRA] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 735
Transfer pricing adjustment - Rejection of comparables - loss making companies - Held that:- the comparables could not be rejected only on the ground of loss making. The cases of loss making companies are required to be further examined to find out if the loss had occurred during the normal course of business or because of some extraordinary factors which have affected the comparability of the transaction. Only in the later case the loss cases have to be excluded. No such exercise has been done - both assessee and TPO have applied TNMM method at entity level which is not correct.
The adjustment is required to be computed only with respect to international transaction and not in respect of the entire business transactions - Merely because the assessee had made mistakes in computing the TP adjustment the authorities cannot follow the same blindly as they are duty bound to compute the adjustment correctly as per law. Because of the mistakes committed by both the sides TP adjustment has been made at Rs. 65.27 crore when the entire purchases from the AE was only Rs. 56.25 crore.
It will not be appropriate to compare the margin of manufacturing companies to those of trading companies. - business profile of the assessee itself was not very clear. - it is appropriate that a fresh transfer pricing study be undertaken for selecting proper comparables after careful study of functional profile of the assessee so as to arrive at proper TP adjustment - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 734
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Ownership of income - Protective assessment - A.O. has concluded that the transaction in question related to purchase of beetel nut made by DTI [Dinesh Tobacco Industries] and not related to Shri Nand Kishore Malani in any manner - A.O. proposed to assess the income in the hands of DTI on the basis of DRI's finding - Held that:- n there is no scope for making the addition of ₹ 3,75,00,000/- , in the same manner as it was surrendered by Shri Nand Kishore Malani, in the hands of the assessee firm when Shri Nand Kishore Malani has made a surrender of the entire money and he has also paid taxes thereon and has also disclosed this income in his return of income. There is no scope for making any addition either on substantive basis or on protective basis in the hands of the assessee firm or in the hands of M/s Dinesh Pouches Ltd. - Following decision of M/s Dinesh Tobacco Industries Vs. DCIT [2013 (8) TMI 715 - ITAT JODHPUR] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 732
Block assessment - Section 158BC and 158BD - amount in the Bank Account and fixed deposit as unexplained credit - validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 158BC and applicability of the provisions of section 68 -Held that:- a mere declaration by someone under VDIS is not sufficient being a satisfactory explanation of cash credit appearing in the books of the assessee which is subjected to further verification and examination to find out the true nature and source of such amount. Further, the declaration made by the claimants can be considered only with respect to those cases where the declaration under the VDIS as well as the deposits in the Bank Account are in the same name.
A declaration made by a person under the VDIS of certain amount and then made a claim regarding the deposit with the Bank which is not in the name of such person cannot be considered as an explanation u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the declaration under VDIS can be considered for further examination and verification for the purpose of explanation in respect of deposits in the Bank Account and FDR only with respect to the cases where the declaration and deposit are in the same name and not in the fictitious name.
Appraisal report is not a relevant and cogent material to be considered for assessment purposes. What is the material is the evidence and information as well as books of account detected during the course of the search and seizure proceeding and subsequent investigation.
Deduction u/s 80P - Held that:- where the addition has been made u/s 68 with respect to the undisclosed deposits, therefore, the benefit of Section 80P is not available on such unexplained income.
Matter remanded back with the direction to AO that, if the deposit and the declaration in the VDIS are in the same name and pertains to the same time/year then it can be considered as an explanation subject to verification of the correct name and identity of the depositor. The declaration of income under VDIS post search and seizure action but name of the declarant does not match with the name of the depositors in the account, the same would not be considered as relevant evidence.
-
2013 (8) TMI 731
Income from undisclosed sources - Gift received through NRE account - Onus to prove the genuineness of gift - CIT sustained addition - Held that:- A gift normally connotes a transaction where a person parts his own property to another without consideration and for love and affection. It is rare to come across a person who makes a gift of money to another out of the borrowed funds - merely because a gift has come through banking channels and from identifiable sources would not be sufficient to discharge the burden of the assessee in respect of cash credit shown to be a gift, unless inter-alia, the credit-worthiness of the donor was also proven.
In the present case, the alleged donor, Smt. Amarjit Kaur, is certainly not shown to be credit worthy since she had no indepdent sources of income and even the allowance received from the UK Govt. was not sufficient to cover the alleged gifts. The claim of taking a loan from Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sidhu is doubtful since the transaction was admittedly in cash and the claim has also been made at a very late stage. The transaction is also not verifiable. Further, as noted earlier, the claim of making gift out of the borrowed money is against normal human probability. The contention that the assessee had no other source of income is not relevant as far as addition u/s 68 of the Act is concernd, since this is a deeming provision which treats unexplained cash credit as the assessee's income - Following decision of Yash Pal Goel v. CIT [2009 (1) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 715
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Ownership of income - Protective assessment - A.O. has concluded that the transaction in question related to purchase of beetel nut made by DTI [Dinesh Tobacco Industries] and not related to Shri Nand Kishore Malani in any manner - A.O. proposed to assess the income in the hands of DTI on the basis of DRI's finding - Held that:- Shri Nand Kishore Malani has made a surrender of the entire money and he has also paid taxes thereon and has also disclosed this income in his return of income. - There is no scope for making any addition either on substantive basis or on protective basis in the hands of the assessee firm or in the hands of M/s Dinesh Pouches Ltd. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) to that extent and order that this income has to be assessed in the hands of Shri Nand Kishore Malani, as individual. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of DEPB/ DDB - Held that:- when original assessment order was completed before the date of search and any deduction was allowed therein and as thereafter no incriminating evidence was found in the search relatable to this issue, the disallowance in respect of DEPB/ DDB cannot be made or for that matter disallowance can be reduced undertaken in proceedings u/s 153A of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 708
Dispute between counsel (CA) and contents in the order sheet recorded by the Judicial Member of the Tribunal - Counsel disputed the contents of the order sheet - application is filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor, C. A. in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the assessee with a request to either recall or expunge the order sheet entry dated 08/02/2013 - Passing of order by the Tribunal despite adjournment sought by the counsel - order was passed not in the open court - manner in which appeal are listed for hearing and adjournment of the same - Conduct of the professional before Tribunal appearing on behalf of assessee
Held that:- No professional has any right to invoke the judicial machinery for his own interest without any reasons. If he does so it would amount to professional misconduct on the part of the professional. Moreover, to dispute the proceedings of the court, without any cogent material, is also an attempt to scandalize the court and also to create hindrance in the proper judicial functioning of the court which cannot be permitted under any circumstances. If it is allowed to be done, the judicial system will collapse. There is hierarchy in the judicial system. If someone is aggrieved with the judicial order passed by any judicial forum, he may approach the higher forum against that order and get the redressal of his grievance but he has no right to make an attempt to scandalize the court by moving such a frivolous application.
Not able to understand, what benefit Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor will get by moving such type of application as this application has been filed by him in his individual capacity and without the consent of the assessee. It is unheard in the judicial system that some professional can appear before the judicial forum under protest and argue his case. It is for the professional to take a decision in this regard whether he wants to appear before a particular court or judicial forum or not.
Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor has no right to argue any case under protest even if his contention is accepted. It is for him to take a decision whether he wants to appear before a particular court or not but the court is not obliged to adjourn the hearing only for the reason that he does not want to appear before it.
During the course of hearing of appeal on 08/02/2013, Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor has not shown any resentment or reservation with the Bench in arguing his case. He happily made the statement that he has no reservation with the Bench and he is ready to argue the case as per instructions from his client. Accordingly, the appeal was heard. Now after the disposal of appeal or even after 48 days from the disputed date of hearing the present application is moved disputing the facts recorded in the order sheet dated 08/02/2013 without any corroborative evidence.
Application dismissed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be recovered as arrear of income tax from Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor, C. A. as this application was filed in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the assessee.
Issue referred the President of Institute of Chartered Accountants with a request to take necessary action as per law against Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor for his professional misconduct and also to take corrective measures and necessary steps to educate its members to behave with the judicial authorities befitting to their status and should not be engaged in scandalizing the judicial authority/courts.
-
2013 (8) TMI 707
Waiver of interest u/s 215 of the Income Tax Act Up to 12.01.1987, and, in fact, up to 09.06.1987 the assessing officer did nothing. It is only on 09.06.1987 which is much beyond one year after 13.01.1986 that the assessing officer issued the notice under section 143(2) of the said Act. Therefore, within the period of one year with effect from 13.01.1986, no delay could be attributable to the petitioner - Held that:- Relying upon the principle of law laid down in J.K. Synthetics Ltd v. CIT [2003 (10) TMI 34 - DELHI High Court], it is held if delay is not attributable to the assessee, interest can not be charged on them.
In the facts of the present case we find that after the issuance of the notice under section 143(2) the assessment has been completed within a little over eight months. Therefore, had the assessing officer been diligent enough and issued the notice under section 143(2) immediately or shortly after 13.01.1986, when the petitioner filed the first revised return, the assessment could have been completed by 12.01.1987 i.e., within one year. It is obvious that under the provisions, the assessing officer is granted a normal period of one year to complete the assessment and, if he does so, there can be no waiver of interest during that period.
However, if the assessing officer is not diligent enough and does not complete the assessment within the said period of one year, any interest liability for the period beyond that one year cannot be foisted on the assessee unless the delay in not completing the assessment within the period of one year is clearly attributable to the assessee.
In the present case, the period of one year which is available to the assessing officer for completing the assessment ended on 12.01.1987. For the delay beyond that date, there has to be waiver of interest unless part of that delay is attributable to the assessee. Here, the delay from 18.01.1988 to 18.02.1988 is clearly attributable to the assessee as it chose to file the second revised return on 18.01.1988. - There shall be waiver of interest under section 215 of the said Act in favour of the petitioner for the period 12.01.1987 to 18.01.1988. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 706
Rejection of books of accounts - question of law - Held that:- When questions of law framed by the assessee are mapped on the canvass of facts and circumstances of this case, it turns out to be clearly a case which has no legal implications to be resolved and rather is entirely dependent upon fact situations which have adequately been dealt with by the statutory authorities within the sweep and domain of their jurisdiction.
When the questions proposed by the appellant have neither legal contours nor have any legal aspect to be discussed, debated or decided or legal complications to be resolved, these questions framed in this appeal, cannot be termed as questions of law much less substantial questions of law. When Assessing Officer had rejected books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act and this finding of fact has been affirmed consecutively by the two statutory appellate authorities which had then proceeded to deal with the entries in such books of accounts under different heads and had rendered their verdicts which have no potential for exposition of any legal theory or concept, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act - Decided against assessee.
............
|
