|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 250 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Interest Income - deduction in respect of whole of the amount of interest or Net income after allowing th permissible deduction - adjustment of carry forward of losses - Held that:- interest on cash security deposited in another co-operative society cannot be treated as investment - Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act allows whole deduction of an income by way of interest or dividends derived by a co-operative society from its investment with any other co-operative society and this provision does not make any distinction in regard to the source of the investment, because the section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by the cooperative society from any investment with a co-operative society. It is immaterial whether any interest paid to the co-operative society exceeds the interest received from the bank on investments. The section does not speak of any adjustment as sought to be made out. The provision does not indicate any such adjustment in regard to interest derived from the co-operative society from its investment in any other co-operative society - Following decision of CIT vs. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1997 (4) TMI 49 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] and CIT vs. Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. [2004 (10) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD High Court] - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 249 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Notice u/s 148 - Method of accounting questioned - Held that:- The assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place - there is failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine the original assessment record and ascertain the method of accounting adopted by the assessee and whether the quantum of receipts disclosed was correct as per the method of accounting and the amount reflected in the TDS certificates was examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings - it is a case of change of opinion because the method of accounting adopted by the assessee and the TDS certificates were examined by the first Assessing Officer - assessee had made full and true disclosure at the time of original proceedings about the method of accounting adopted by him and the quantum of receipts disclosed - Following decision of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 248 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exclusion u/s 10(10CC) - non-monetary perquisites - where income tax paid to discharge tax obligation of employee, on his behalf is a monetary perquisite or not - Held that:- only change is in introduction of Section 10 (10CC) which states that tax actually paid by employer to discharge an employee‘s obligation not amounting to a monetary benefit would not be included as employees‘ income. If seen from context of Section 17 (2), and previous history to that provision, as well as pre existing provision of Section 10 (5B) – and interpretation placed on Section 17 (2) read with or provisions which disallow payments made on behalf of employee, by employer, so long as benefit is not expressed in monetary terms in hands of employee, in sense that it is not funded as part of salary, but paid in discharge of obligation, of any sort, eir contractual or legal (tax) directly by employer, it should not be treated as a monetary benefit. reason for this is that Section 10 (10CC) is neutral about kind of benefit availed by employee - words in section contemplate a situation where assessee makes a payment (in cash) in respect of an obligation -obligation of employee - which would have been payable by employee if it is not paid by assessee. payment by assessee contemplated by these words is not evidently a payment to employee but to a third party, no doubt, on account of employee - Following decision of CIT v. Mysore Commercial Union Ltd. [1980 (7) TMI 86 - KARNATAKA High Court] and CIT v. Shriram Refrigeraiton industries Ltd. [1992 (5) TMI 15 - DELHI High Court] - Decided favour of assessee.
Social security, pension and medical insurance contributions - Held that:- assessee does not, in any appeal, get a vested right at time of contribution to fund by employer. - amount standing to credit of pension fund account, social security or medical or health insurance would continue to remain invested till assessee becomes entitled to receive it. In case of medical benefit, revenue could not support its contentions by citing any provision in any policy or scheme which is subject matter of se appeals, which entitle vesting right to receive amount under scheme or plan did not occur - one cannot be said to allow a perquisite to an employee if employee has no right to same. It cannot apply to contingent payments to which employee has no right till contingency occurs. employee must have a vested right in amount - contribution made by employee towards a fund established for welfare of employees would not be deemed to be a perquisite in hands of employees concerned as y do not acquire a vested right in sum contributed by employer - amounts paid by employers to pension, or social security funds, or for medical benefits, are not perquisites within meaning of expression, under Section 17 (1) (v) and refore, amounts paid by employer in that regard are not taxable in hands of employee-assessee - Following decision of CIT v. Mehar Singh Sampuran Singh Chawla [1972 (5) TMI 6 - DELHI High Court] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Hypothetical Tax - Held that:- hypothetical tax as one where employee of a multinational company, seconded to serve in India, is assured a net salary amount equivalent to what is earned by him abroad. assessee paid a certain amount of tax in US dollars upon salary earned in United states. employer after deducting tax, calculated net amount receivable by assessee; it n considered how much tax would be payable by assessee on income earned in India. As amount payable as tax in India was lower, it (also called hypothetical tax) was not given to assessee, thus assuring that net amount received by him was in accordance with prior agreement. In or words, hypothetical tax denotes sum of money withheld by employer to fulfill a commitment of paying a particular net salary. Court, after considering materials, concluded that so long as assessee paid tax on actual salary received, could not be saddled with hypothetical tax amount - employers had assured a certain net salary; assessees were paid that; they suffered tax on that salary. question of ir paying more, refore, would not arise - Following decision of Commissioner of Income Tax v Dr. Percy Batlivala [2009 (12) TMI 811 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Grossing up under Section 195-A - Tribunal held that taxes paid by employer can be added only once in salary of employee - Held that:- whenever tax is deposited in respect of a non-monetary perquisite, provision of Section 10 (10CC) applies, thus excluding multiple stage grossing up. purpose and intent of introducing amendment to Section 10 (10CC) was to exclude element of income – which would have arisen otherwise, as a perquisite, and as part of salary. Once that stood excluded, and option was given to employer under Section 192 (1A) to honour agreement with employee, Parliament could not have intended its inclusion in any or form, even for purpose of deduction at source. Doing so would defeat intent behind Section 10 (10CC) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Assessability of TDS refunds received by employee - Held that:- employer, in terms of its arrangement with employee, had to pay income-tax due on latter‘s income for services rendered. employer could not have paid to State any amount in excess of what was due as tax on salary. But, employer, mistakenly paid to State, excess amounts which were refunded, but instead, to assessee - amount was not paid to employee or due to him, from employer, according to terms of contract governing relationship. It was paid to Government, over and above tax due on salary. It was not for benefit of assessee. It never, therefore, bore characteristic of salary or perquisite. Till assessment was made, amount could not be refunded to assessee. revenue‘s position overlooks that all receipts are not taxable receipts. Before a receipt is brought to tax, nature and character of receipt in hands of recipient has to be considered. Every receipt or monetary advantage or benefit in hands of its recipient is not taxable unless it is established to be due to him. If amount is not due, recipient- in this case, employee is obliged to pay back sum to person, to whom it belongs. A perquisite or such amount, to be taxed, should be received under a legal or equitable claim, even contingent. receipt of money or property which one is obliged to return or repay to rightful owner, as in case of a loan or credit, cannot be taken as a benefit or a perquisite. amounts paid in excess by employer, and refunded to employee never belonged to latter; he cannot be refore taxed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Legal expenses incurred - Held that:- primary liability to pay tax in this case was borne by employer; it clearly fell within definition of a non-monetary advantage. That company, as part of its policy, sought advice from a consultancy firm which was paid for its services. That benefit of these ultimately enured to assessee, cannot mean that it formed part of his income as perquisite - assessee was beneficiary to his employer‘s policy of consulting tax experts for filing income tax returns as appears to have been prevailing practice of his employer, in respect of or employees as well, would not transform expense borne by employer into income in assessee‘s hands - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 247 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Undisclosed income - Receipt of on-money - Addition made on account of ‘on money’ receipt - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that:- amount mentioned along with rates per sq.ft. of different floors on the loose papers is in respect of an estimate asking for the loan from the bank - No other evidence has been shown to justify that these amounts were received from purchasers – it is not justified to conclude that assessee received on-money - CIT (Appeals) & ITAT were right in holding that on the basis of these loose papers, no addition can be made - Following decision of CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [2007 (7) TMI 267 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], CIT vs. K. Bhuvanendran [2006 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Return / Release of cash seized during search - section 132A - 30% of amount seized paid as income tax and Refund of remaining amount - Held that:- seized amount should not be kept idle as "dead investment". The amount seized from the first respondent herein could be utilized until the veracity of the case has been determined. Hence, the interim order is maintainable. Therefore, the part amount had been released to the accused on condition that he executes a bond with one surety for like sum on condition that he shall return the amount to the Court as and when required - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 245 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deduction u/s 80IA - Tribunal deleted penalty - Held that:- For claiming deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, filing of certificate and forms signed by the Chartered Accountant is mandatory and a requirement of law. All returns, where deduction under Section 80IA is claimed, must have such certificates and forms. Mere filing of the said forms/certificate cannot absolve and protect an assessee who furnishes in-accurate particulars. If the explanation and the reasoning of the Tribunal is accepted, then in all cases where a form/certificate is furnished by the Chartered Accountant but a wrong claim of deduction is made, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed. Merely because the assessee complies with the statutory procedural requirement of filing the prescribed form and certificate of the Chartered Accountant, cannot absolve the assessee of its liability if the act or attempt in claiming the deduction was not bonafide - Penalty of concealment cannot be imposed because the assessee has taken a particular stand or had preferred an interpretation which was plausible and reasonable, but has not been accepted, unless the assessee had not disclosed facts before the authorities. Such cases have to be distinguished from cases where the claim of the assessee is farcical or farfetched. Dubious and fanciful claims under the garb of interpretation, are a mere pretence and not bonafide - assessees had not carried out the work but had sub-contracted the same to a third party/parties - Tribunal has not referred to the Explanation to Section 80IA as to why and on what basis divergent interpretations were possible. Absurd or illogical interpretations cannot be pleaded and become pretence and excuses to escape penalty. “Bonafides” have to be shown and cannot be assumed. In the present case, the respondents have not been able to discharge the said onus and establish that they had acted bonafidely - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deemed gift under Gift Tax Act - Difference between the market value and the actual consideration of shares - Tribunl set aside assessment on deemed gift - Held that:- assessee had only 30 days time to sell all these rights. It is equally true that the stockbroker, in his letter dated 07.8.1993, had expressed his doubt about selling the rights in the open market at the best possible price, but the apprehension expressed by the stockbroker, by itself cannot be taken as a piece of evidence to accept the case of the assessee that the price charged by the assessee can be taken as the best price. In the circumstances, the volume of rights and the time factor, by itself, cannot be presumed as providing good reasons to accept the plea of the assessee that these constraints was in the way of selling these rights at the best possible price in the open market - The Tribunal pointed out that the Revenue had not disputed that the assessee was given the limited period of 30 days for selling the rights, yet, this apart, the assessee had not placed any material before the Court or before any of the Authorities below as regards the steps taken with due diligence to sell these rights in the open market; that ultimately faced with time constraint and the volume of rights to be disposed of, it had to sell the rights at Rs.5/- as against the prevailing market price of Rs.21.50/- each - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 243 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s. 54F - Tribunal declined to grant exemption - Held that:- definition of the word ‘transfer’ under section 2[47] of the Act includes situation where transaction involving allowing of possession of any immovable property in part performance of the contract. But that should be made good on material placed on record and through cogent evidence. The claim of the assessee that there was transfer of possession to her under the agreement dated 15.09.2004 has not been made out on acceptable material facts before the three authorities and the finding of all the three authorities is that there is nothing to indicate that assessee was in possession of the subject land even as on 15.09.2004 - No question of law arises - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 242 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses - CIT upheld disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses - Tribunal deleted disallowance - Held that:- when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his business, there is no legal obligation imposed on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was necessary for promotion of his business. So long as the expenditure is incurred by an assessee for promotion of sale of product, the assessee is entitled, under Section 37(1) of the Act, to claim exemption from tax on such amount of expenditure - For the allowability of an expenditure under Section 37 of the Act, it is not relevant as to whether the benefit, expected to be accrued out of an expenditure incurred, is to accrue immediately or after a lapse of time, whether directly or indirectly - since it is customary in the European countries for the wives to accompany their husbands, the travelling of the wives along with their husbands cannot be said to be personal visits of the wives, but such a visit has to be regarded as having been undertaken for the purpose of business of the respondent company - expenditure, on the visits by the representative of the company abroad and expenditure as well as the visits to India by the London based officials of the respondent company, in view of the respondent company's substantial exposure to overseas trade and large holdings of the respondent company with foreign promoters, were business expenditures - No substantial question of law arises - Following decision of Eastern Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [1951 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] - Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance under head publicity expenses - Held that:- If the management paid some amount for the upliftment/ running of the club in question, then it must be held that the payment was made in the interest of the company so that its employees remain happy and consequently the work of the company was not hampered in any way due to dissatisfaction on the part of its employees - while dealing with donation made voluntarily by an assessee with the object of obtaining permits of business, so as to enable the assessee to earn profits by export and selling of gram in the neighboring states - it is for the assessee to decide where and in what manner publicity of its business is to be done and what benefit it will derive for its business by making such publicity - Following decisions of Assam Brooke Ltd. vs. CIT [2004 (1) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA High Court] and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kuber Singh Bhagwandas [1978 (10) TMI 134 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 241 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Unexplained gift u/s 68 - Gift from brother in USA - Tribunal held all details disclosed therefore deleted addition - Held that:- gift was received from the brother of the assessee. Necessary details were provided to establish the fact. The brother was residing in USA. The gift was received through banking channel. Copies of draft/cheque issued by the donor and the copy of the passport and the acknowledgement of the donor having filed the return in USA were produced - Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance of freight charges u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS not deducted - Tribunal held A.O. failed to establish how Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable therefore deleted disallowance - Held that:- AO could not point out any subcontractor in whose case the charges were made in excess on an individual transaction - assessee had produced copy of the accounts of carting paid - On the basis of such document, he had from the outset contended with the Assessing Officer that no individual payment exceeded Rs.20,000/- at a time nor the total to an individual pay exceeded Rs. 50,000/- in a year. The Assessing Officer, without discarding such stand of the assessee, proceeded to make disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the premise that tax was not deducted at source - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 240 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital loss as revenue expenditure - Writing off the assets - Tribunal deleted disallowance - Held that:- Requirement was of the Government to furnish the bank guarantee from the nationalized bank or the scheduled bank. The Assessee had availed such bank guarantee facilities - The prescribed norms of the bank had noted the purchase of the shares and margin money for using the bank guarantee also was required to be kept as a fixed deposit. This co-operative bank, when eventually was declared as sick bank, was unable to repay the deposits, the membership of the said bank also was cancelled and the steps were taken pursuant to the order of the Reserve Bank of India. Assessee-company, thereafter, had written off the balance - Therefore, expenditure were needed to be spent by the assessee for the purpose of carrying on its business and are incidental to the business, therefore, any loss shall have to be considered as the revenue cost and not the capital cost - Following decisions of Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT [1977 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] and Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1972 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 239 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Undisclosed investment - Tribunal held there was full disclosure of all investments therefore deleted disallowance - Held that:- Whether any sale consideration in excess to what was disclosed before the Assessing Officer was paid or not is essentially based on facts to be judged on the basis of relevant material on record. When CIT [A] and the Tribunal both concurrently came to the conclusion that there is no evidence supporting the assessing Officer's version that the assessee had invested large amount in purchase of the land, then no substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business expenditure u/s 37(1) - Payment in Provident Fund - Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Tribunal deleted disallowance - Held that:- if there are interest free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee has raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from interest free funds available - assessee has suo moto disallowed sum u/s. 14A - Assessing Officer had, without giving a finding as to how much administrative expenditure have been incurred to earn the exempt income, had made disallowance - Following decision of CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 222 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 40(b) - Partnership firm or association of persons - A.O. allowed deduction to assessee - CIT revised the order u/s 263, considered assessee as AOP and disallowed deduction - Held that:- Assessee was a renowned partnership firm and was well aware that number of partners cannot exceed 20. It is a well settled principle of law that what is permissible is tax planning, but not evasion. When an attempt is made by a concern to evade tax using subtle camouflages, bounden duty of the authorities is to find out the real intention. It is the duty of the Court in every case, where ingenuity is expended to avoid taxing and welfare legislations, to get behind the smoke screen and discover the true state of affairs - assessee was indirectly trying to bring in M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Mumbai, another firm, which was already a participating firm, as its partner, circumventing the limit of maximum 20 members. It is also obvious that Assessing Officer despite having the amendment deed with him, had not gone into these aspects. Assessment order is a crisp one accepting the income returned by the assessee. Assessee has not been able to place any record to show that Assessing Officer had called for any details regarding the number of partners during the course of assessment.
A crisp order by itself might not show that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. But, when the circumstances show that despite availability of materials, is that Assessing Officer had not looked into such aspects nor applied his mind. Assessee had claimed substantial amount as remuneration to its partners under Section 40(b) of the Act and this was allowed as such without considering the crucial aspect of the legality of its claim of status as a firm.
CIT went over board when he directed the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment order by treating the assessee as an AOP and disallow the claim of remuneration to its partners. The CIT ought have simply set aside the order of A.O. for consideration of issue afresh, since it was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and to this extent, order of ld. CIT required modification - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 197 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - Quarterly TDS return delayed - CIT deleted penalty - Tribunal held that no evidence has been brought to show that there was any correspondence undertaken with the deductees for obtaining PAN numbers - Held that:- CIT(A) could not have, without any discussion as to whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not being able to file the returns within the prescribed time, deleted the penalty merely on the ground that the tax was already deducted. In his essence, this is all that CIT(A) had done in his appellate order - Tribunal also could have at least called for the documents on record before CIT(A) before holding whether there was any evidence with respect to the reason for the assessee's inability to file the returns in time - Case remitted back to CIT - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 196 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Unexplained credits - additions u/s 68 - onus to prove - Held that:- the assessee, by merely furnishing a list, did not discharge her burden. Acceding to the contention of the learned counsel would amount to laying down a rule that it is for the Revenue to find out whether the assessee has or may have an explanation to offer. When an explanation is called for from the assessee, he or she must take care to substantiate her explanation by such supporting evidence as may be in his or her power to produce. Who are the buyers; how or in what circumstances did they advance the sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- and who are the sellers ? How and in what circumstances did the sum of Rs. 42,78,717/- become payable to them was in the special knowledge of the assessee.
It was, therefore, her obligation to disclose cogent evidence in that regard. She claims to be a commission agent. The column 5 of GTI-1 provides for deduction of commission. Therefore it should not have been difficult for the assessee to disclose the relevant evidence about the transactions allegedly made by the assessee on behalf of suppliers of fish or the trawler owners. Her failure to do so even prima facie amounts to no explanation at all.
Following decision of Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2003 (3) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA High Court], Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormal [1974 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and CIT. v. Mohanakala [2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Secured debts - Whether realization of income-tax dues from the assesses under the Income Tax Act, 1961 will have priority over the secured debt in terms of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - overriding charge - Held that:- Regard being had to the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, it is clear that a first charge on the property is created clearly giving priority to the dues of the said statutory authority over all other charges on the property, on the basis of the mortgage, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not provide for a priority to the statutory charge over all other charges including mortgage under the 'SFC Act' - Following decision of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. National Iron and Steel Rolling Corpn. [1994 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2013 (8) TMI 194 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income u/s 5(2) - Income deemed to accrue or arisen in India u/s 9 - Part of business done in India - CIT upheld imposition of tax - Tribunal held that assessee purchases the goods for the purpose of exports, hence not liable to tax - Held that:- assessee is not carrying any business in India. They have established a liaison office. The object of establishing the said office is to identify the manufacturers, give them the technical know-how and see that they manufacture goods according to their specification which would be sold to their affiliates. The person who purchases the goods pays the money to the manufacturer, in the said income, the assessee has no right - The buyer who is a non-resident may in turn pay some consideration to the assessee outside India, the contract between the assessee and the buyer if at all is entered outside India. Therefore, even if any income arises or accrues to the assessee, it is outside India.
As the orders are placed by the assessee with the manufacturer and the goods are manufactured according to their specification which is the requirement of the buyer and even if it is held, though the goods are supplied to the buyer, it is deemed to be supplied to the assessee, the whole object of this transaction is to purchase goods for the purpose of export. Once the entire operations are confined to the purchase of goods in India for the purpose of export, the income derived therefrom shall not be deemed to accrue or arise in India and it shall not be deemed to be an income under Section 9 of the Act - Following decision of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab v. R.D. Agarwal and Company [1964 (10) TMI 9 - SUPREME Court].
The activities of the assessee in assisting the Indian manufacturer to manufacture the goods according to their specification is to see that the said goods manufactured has an international market, therefore, it could be exported. In the process, the assessee is not earning any income in India. If at all he is earning income outside India under a contract which is entered outside India, no part of their income could be taxed in India either under Section 5 or Section 9 of the Act. - Decided against the Revenue
-
2013 (8) TMI 193 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Method of computing profit rate - A.O. used comparable method of accounting - CIT upheld the method of accounting but reduced the amount of addition - Tribunal deleted disallowance - Held that:- The CIT(A) has given cogent reason for not endorsing the approach of the AO in making assessment with reference to the case of another assessee after finding it to be not a directly comparable case and hence, not a safe guide more particularly, when assessee's past history was available and there was no material difference in the facts pertaining to the relevant assessment year and the past history year. The CIT(A), even while accepting past history as the relevant basis for assessment, proceeded to retain a part of the addition without cogent and sufficient reason therefor. The Tribunal, therefore, while endorsing the basis adopted by the CIT(A), has found no reason to sustain any addition and hence, deleted the addition altogether - Tribunal cannot be faulted in accepting the profit rate as declared by the assessee while not approving the rate as applied by the AO - Following decision of ) CIT v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi & Partners [2013 (7) TMI 813 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 192 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of TDS deduction - Tribunal upheld disallowance but deleted penalty - Held that:- disallowance was due to non-payment of TDS, which was at the most a technical default. There being nothing to indicate any concealment of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was rightly not justified in levying the penalty - Decided against Revenue.
....
|
