|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1232 Records
-
2014 (5) TMI 1195 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Classification of an item - mirror glass sheet - whether it is not "cosmetic mirror glass" but is "unclassified item"? - HELD THAT:- Appellant-Revenue could not dispute that mirror glass sheet by itself could not be used at all and it has to be further worked in respect of size etc. so as to used for any purpose whatsoever, therefore, by itself, it cannot be said to be a 'toilet requisite'.
There are no reason to defer from the view taken by Tribunal - revision dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1194 - SC ORDER
Charitable activities u/s 2(15) - exemption u/s 10(23C) - Whether receipt of royalty in lieu of IPR is charitable activity or not - Requirement of separate books of accounts - Registration of charitable institution u/s 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1193 - ITAT RAJKOT
Recognition u/s 80G(5) - relevance of object of a trust - stage of registration and for exemption under Section 80G - charitable activity u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT:- Stated object of the trust is required to be examined. Whether the funds are properly applied or not, can be examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the assessment.”
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. O.P. Jindal Global University [2013 (5) TMI 364 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that at the time of granting approval for exemption u/s 80G, object of the trust is required to be examined and application of funds can be examined by Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1192 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 51 of FERA 1973 - HELD THAT:- This Court, upon perusal of the paper book, is prima facie of the view that as the impugned order is only a show cause notice and that too of the year 2003, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are given liberty to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the preliminary stage before the adjudicating authority itself.
The adjudicating authority is directed to decide the aforesaid preliminary issue. All rights and contentions of both the parties including the issue of delay and laches are left open.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1191 - ITAT PANAJI
Exemption u/s 2(14) in respect of agriculture property transferred - any proof of conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural land - HELD THAT:- This property is the garden land and cultivable area and when it is cultivable area it is an agricultural land therefore, we are of the view that CIT(A) is justified in holding that the disputed property is agricultural land and it is liable to be exemption under section 2(14) of the Income tax Act on capital gain. We find that the assessee has sold agricultural land and this agricultural land is situated in village Panchayat and the same was not coming within 8 kms from notified Municipality. The form No. I & XIV shows that the land in question is agricultural land. The agricultural operation were carried in the property till the date it was sold and the several fruits bearing trees were existed in the said agricultural land for a number of years, thus, it is a garden land. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not liable to be a capital gain.
We find that the CIT has relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Debbie Alemao [2010 (9) TMI 560 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein as held that when land is shown by the Govt. as agricultural land and that land is never used as non agricultural land till it was sold. The assessee is not liable for capital gain. The Hon’ble High Court has further held that the land has to be treated as agricultural land even though no such agricultural income is shown by the assessee as the assessee stated that the agricultural income received on sale of coconuts grown on the land was just enough to maintain the land and there was no surplus
CIT(A) is justified in his action and our interference is not required. We also find from the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. Smt. K. Leelavathy [2012 (3) TMI 151 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein High Court has held that the land sold by the assessee retained its agricultural character till the date of the order permitting non agricultural use and could be treated as capital asset only thereafter. In the instant case there is no evidence on the record that this property in use is converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land moreover the Assessing Officer has not brought out any evidence before us. We find that the assessee was holding this land almost 20 years and the assessee was holding as owner of the property as agricultural land. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT is justified and our interference is not required. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the finding of the CIT(A). In the result, department’s appeal is dismissed on this ground.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1190 - ITAT MUMBAI
Special provision for computing profits and gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents - section 44B applicability - TDS u/s 195 - Default u/s 201(1) - non deduction of tds on hire/time charter charges paid by the assessee to the non-resident entities being in the nature of royalty (equipment royalty taking ship as an equipment) - provisions of section 44B applicability - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the provisions of section 44B of the Act are applicable to the payments in question made by the assessee.
Default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - as respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra [2009 (4) TMI 207 - ITAT BOMBAY-H] we hold that the orders passed by the A.O. u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act in the present case for all the three years under consideration treating SCIL as the assessee in default cannot be sustained as there are no assessments which have been made in the hands of the payees in respect of the amounts paid by the assessee and even the time period for issuing notices u/s 148 for making such assessments have already come to an end. We accordingly uphold the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1189 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Valuation of shares - Approval of this Court to a special resolution passed by a majority of Cadbury India's shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting, for reduction of Cadbury India's share capital - Principles of Universal Application.
HELD THAT:- The only conclusion to be drawn is that there is no valid or tenable objection to the scheme. Given that the originally propounded valuation now stands eclipsed by the Court-ordered valuation, it is this valuation that will have to be taken into account. The valuation of ₹ 2,014.50/- per fully paid up equity share arrived at by the Court-appointed valuer E & Y in its second (supplementary) report dated 29th July 2011 is accepted. The petition is made absolute in these terms and on the basis of that valuation.
There will be no order as to costs.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1188 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - flavoured milk - whether can be classified as soft drinks or not? - HELD THAT:- Circular dated 27.11.2002 to held that Badam Milk will remain to be milk and mere addition of some powder will not change its nature and that is how, concurrent findings has been recorded. The circular of Commissioner dated 27.11.2002 is binding upon department - revision dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1187 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commission - contention was raised primarily on the ground that there was an alternative remedy provided to the consumer to raise his grievances before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) established Under Section 42(5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- On a conjoint reading of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act along with the objectives and purpose for which Act 2003 is enacted, it becomes clear that there are two ways in which a consumer stated in a particular area can avail supply of electricity, as pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for TPC and noted above. When an application is made by a consumer to a distribution licensee for supply of electricity, such a distribution licensee for supply of electricity, such a distribution licensee can request other distribution licensee in the area to provide it network to make available for wheeling electricity to such consumers and this open access is to be given as per the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Act. It is here only that local authority is exempted from such an obligation and may refuse to provide makes it network available. Second option is, Under Section 43 of the Act, to provide the electricity to the consumer by the distribution licensee from its own network.
It is difficult to accept the extreme position taken by the Appellant that if local authority is a distribution licensee in a particular area, there cannot be any other distribution licensee in that area without the permission of such a local authority. Not only such a contention would negate the effect of universal supply obligation Under Section 43, it will also amount to providing an exception which is not there either in Section 43 or Section 14 of the Act namely to treat local authority in special category and by giving it the benefit even that benefit which is not specified under the Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Detention of goods with vehicle - section 129(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - deposit of tax and penalty under protest - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has already deposited tax and the penalty under section 129(1A) of the GST Act, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the Truck No.GJ-04-AW-0962 along with the goods contained therein.
Issue Notice returnable on 19.06.2019.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1185 - ITAT MUMBAI
Permanent Establishment(PE) in India under the provisions of Article 5(2) (k) - scope of expressions “rendering” and “furnishing” - case of the assessee that it did not have any Permanent Establishment(PE) in India under the provisions of Article 5(2) (k) as it was “rendering” services in India, where as per Article 5(2)(k) of DTAA, it was necessary to “Furnish” services in India - HELD THAT:- Expressions “rendering” and “furnishing” are somewhat inter changeable in the normal course of business and it will be too pedantic hyper technical approach to narrow down the meaning of expression “furnishing” to exclude rendering of professional services and if the answer of this question is in yes then it was to be held that assessee did not have a P.E in India in terms of Article 5(2)(k) of India UK DTAA, and, accordingly, profits attributable to P.E were taxable under Article – 7 of India UK DTAA and this question was answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee.
As decided in own case [2010 (7) TMI 535 - ITAT, MUMBAI] the assessee did have a PE in India under article 5(2)(k) of the India-UK tax treaty, and, accordingly, profits attributable to the PE are taxable under article 7 of the India-UK tax treaty. - Decided against the assessee.
Profits attributable to P.E in India - computation provided by the appellant in the Income and Expenditure Account as being the income attributable to the permanent establishment - whether value of services rendered by the PE is to be taken at market value of such services in India and not the price at which permanent establishment should be taken? - gross income at £ 1,56,813, deduction for direct expenditure at £ 52.445, deduction for overheads £ 2,623 and net profit at £ 1,01,745 - HELD THAT:- The very plea of the assessee proceeds on fallacy that arm’s length price adjustment can be made in respect of the transactions with the clients of the assessee. The revenues earned by the assessee are to be taken at actual figures and no adjustments are permissible in the same. We reject this plea of the assessee as well. The action of the authorities below is confirmed on this count as well - Decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of disbursements to the extent of 25% of the disbursement claim proportionate to the fee relating to services rendered in India as compared to the total fees - permanent establishment in India under Article 5(2)(k) of the Tax Treaty between India and the U.K - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for the entire amount of the disbursements. AR was able to demonstrate that similar evidence which was furnished in respect of A.Y 1995-96 was also placed before AO during the course of assessment proceedings and on the basis of that evidence CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee on account of reimbursement of expenses. The decision relied upon by DR also does not support the case of the Revenue for restoration of the issue to the file of AO as in the present case reimbursement has been compensated directly and not through third party. In this view of the situation, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the assessee in ground No.6 of this appeal and raised by the Revenue in Ground No.2 of its appeal are covered in favour of the assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1184 - ITAT CHENNAI
TP adjustment - transactions with the parent company - adjustment made by rejecting M/s KPIT Cummins as a comparable - also after excluding foreign exchange as a relevant factor for the purpose of determining arm's length price - M/s KPIT Cummins has not been accepted to be a comparable since the assessee had taken into consideration its 'rest of the world revenue' - HELD THAT:- Neither at the first nor at the second chance, the TPO ever gave a comprehensive show cause to the assessee before rejecting the comparable. The assessee's argument that in succeeding assessment years, the very entity as a comparable stands accepted; has also not been specifically denied by the Revenue. In addition to this, no distinction on facts of the impugned and succeeding assessment year is pointed out. It emanates that the TPO's and Assessing Officer's orders dated 28.10.2011 26.9.2012 respectively, are prior in point of time than the TPO's order dated 31.10.2012 and assessment order dated 26.3.2013 for succeeding assessment year. In these circumstances, the aforesaid documents are admitted as a part of record. In addition to this, the fact also remains that from proceedings of assessment year 2009-10, acceptance of M/s KPIT Cummins as a comparable is not forthcoming - interest of justice would be met in case the issue is remitted back to the TPO for afresh proceedings
Inclusion of foreign exchange as a relevant factor in computation of ALP in transfer pricing proceedings - TPO as well as the DRP in the present case are of the view that such a factor has to be excluded - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/S. FOUR SOFT LTD. HYDERABAD VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD. [2011 (9) TMI 634 - ITAT HYDERABAD] there is no justification for any adjustment to the price declared by the assessee, since the assessee's margin would fall within the arms length range. We therefore, hold that no adjustment is required to be made on the margin declared by the assessee for the international transaction of the AEs in relation to software development services - we direct the TPO to take into consideration foreign exchange factor in computing assessee's ALP. The question is accordingly decided against the Revenue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1183 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment u/s 153A - additions over and above declared income u/s. 132(4) based on materials gathered during assessment and other seized materials - HELD THAT:- With regard to justification of retraction, the stand of the assessee has been manifold. AR has submitted that a mistake in the declaration during search was due to incorrect bank credit summation which is matter of record. According to the learned Authorized Representative in general, books prepared by the assessee have not been rejected by cogent reasoning.
The main emphasis of the assessee has been that agricultural activity and related income was bonafide one as a source of initial funds. The source of agricultural income ought to have considered the overall quantification of income. The addition has been made on the basis of search statement alone, which is not justified. According to AO, the disclosure promise during search u/s.132(4) has not been fulfilled. While, according to the CIT(A), self serving books are not admitted. The Assessing Officer’s verification of books, his findings, etc. are contrary to his finding of facts on the issue. In this background, the stand of the assessee has been that the Assessing Officer’s observation as regards the books of accounts, mistake of quantification of credits, summations, etc., are facts.
These observations ought to have not been brushed aside by the CIT(A). According to us, this approach is not justified. The authorities below should give finding on each and every point while reaching to its conclusion.
Return filed based on books of account and income declared was reflected based on cogent reasoning - The main objection of the Assessing Officer has been that there is long gap of 28 months for retracting by way of return while there was no threat or coercion during search - HELD THAT:- For A.Y. 2004-05, source of funds for Ghanawat land deal were claimed from agricultural income and gift from relatives. The Assessing Officer has observed that the agricultural income was not sufficient considering Ghanawat land deal, hence, the said argument was not accepted. While in appeal, the CIT(A) in para 13, page 22 observed that considering the lavish life style of assessee, the agricultural income of ₹ 1.95 lakhs was not sufficient to explain the source of land payment. In this background, the stand of the assessee has been that the amount payments recorded in books of accounts, agricultural income was bonafide and gifts have not been doubted, so the addition in question was not justified. Thus, the authorities below have taken contradictory stand while rejecting the stand of assessee. In fact, it should be analysed as per fact put forward by the assessee on the point and authorities below should have appreciated the fact before reaching any adverse opinion that too mainly based on admission of assessee.
For A.Y. 2005-06, the stand of the assessee has been that the books are made on the basis of bank statement primarily. The very same statement was used as basis for declaration during search. This mistake crept in assessment and appellate stage, which could not be cured. According to us, the facts on record should not have been ignored to justify addition mainly based on admission.
Regarding A.Y. 2007-08 CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting contentions of assessee while upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This aspect needs deep probe into the matter on the issue.
With regard to the other addition i.e. ₹ 32.50 lakhs received from Mr. Sonigra CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer on the point. The stand of the assessee has been that the assessee has not received any cash from Ravet land deal from Sonigra. However, the assessee was in receipt of ₹ 33 lakhs for another land deal at Shinde Wasti which ultimately did not materialize. The said fact clearly emerged from the statement of Sonigra. These arguments of assessee have not been met out by authorities below. According to us, it is not justified. To reach a proper conclusion, it needs deep probe into the matter. It is pertinent to mention here that the person from agricultural background is not able to understand and meet out economic complications with income tax angle in fast urbanization.
According to us, the books of accounts should be rejected only after rejecting the claim of assessee by cogent reasoning because the assessee’s contention revolves around bank statement found during the course of search. According to us, this whole issue should be looked into in the light of above discussion. So, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the whole issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law and after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1182 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Estimation of disallowance of 2% of gross dividend income as the expenditure, as being incidental to the earning of dividend income u/s. 14A of the Act as the assessee had not furnished the details of expenditure incidental to earning of dividend income, estimation was made of the expenditure attributable to dividend income at 2% of the gross dividend income. We estimate the expenditure incurred towards earning of exempt dividend income of ₹ 11,61,400/- at 2% of the gross dividend income which works out to ₹ 23, 228/-. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.
Addition u/s. 36(1)(viia) - provisions for bad and doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia), to the extent of provision made and available in the books of account, whether made in the current previous year or in the preceding previous years as we find that none of the lower authorities i.e. either AO or the CIT (Appeals) has examined the issue under consideration from this angle and as the entire facts are not available for us to adjudicate the issue, we, in the interest of substantial justice, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh as per law in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. Needless to mention that the AO shall allow reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue afresh.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER
Prayer for adjournment so as to enable him to file rejoinder affidavit - Held that:- Prayer is allowed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1180 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prayer to withdraw appeal - validity of assessment order dated 25.07.2013 - Held that:- The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn - It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available to it in accordance with May 21, 2014.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1179 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty levied u/s 271AAA - conditions laid down in sub-section(2) of section 271AAA not been fulfilled by the assessee - surrender of income consequent to search - assessee could not explain the manner in which the undisclosed income had been derived by him - Held that:- The transactions which could not be verified from the regular books of account of assessee’s business were surrendered by him. It is a fact that the A.O. has admitted this surrender on the basis of assessee’s business activity being carried on by him. There is no specific finding or evidence with reference to the seized material or in the statement from which contrary view can be taken.
On similar facts, the Cuttack Bench of the ITAT while deciding the case of Pramod Kumar Jain reported in [2012 (12) TMI 629 - ITAT CUTTACK] as relied upon by the ld. CIT(A), has taken a view that there is no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated when the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented “either wholly or partly’ which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act has been correctly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1178 - ITAT JODHPUR
Disallowance of depreciation to assessee-trust - depreciation cannot be allowed to the assessee being a trust as the full value of the assets had already been allowed as capital expenses during the earlier years and considered as application of income of the trust - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO in accordance with the judgmentof CIT Vs. Market Committee [2010 (7) TMI 374 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and no contrary decision was brought to our notice. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these grounds of the departmental appeal.
Addition on account of interest from bank - as credited to earmarked fund account ignoring the fact that it is a revenue receipt and ought to have been credited to Income and Expenditure Account - Held that:- Issue to be decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision in the case of Sukhdeo Charity Estate Vs. Income Tax Officer [1991 (5) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT].
Donations received in kind were not income for the purpose of Section 12(1) - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee received the donations in kind and the same could not be applied, accumulated or invested, therefore, it cannot be treated as income. Therefore, the CIT(A) was fully justified in reversing the observations of the Assessing Officer. We do not see any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1177 - ITAT NEW DELHI
Disallowance of trade discount u/s 40A(2)(b)- Held that:- Issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of United Exports Vs. CIT [2009 (8) TMI 60 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein their Lordships held that Section 40A(2)(b) is not applicable in respect of trade discount. Section 40A(2)(b) is not applicable in respect of trade discount. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (5) TMI 1176 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of business expenditure - assessee company had not commenced during the year under consideration - Held that:- While deciding the appeal for, AY 2005-06 on 11.09.2013,Tribunal had held that assessee commenced its business activity in March 2004 i.e. in AY 2004-05. It was finally held that assessee had set up his business activities in earlier years. As the facts and circumstances for the year under appeal are identical to the earlier AY.s,so,respectfully following the same we decide ground no.1 & 2 against the AO. He is directed to allow the deductions to the assessee as per the provisions of law.
Allowance of interest expenditure under the head ‘Income from House Property’ - Held that:- Referring to orders for the earlier years as held that income of the assessee for the year under consideration has to be assessed under the head ‘Business Income’,therefore, in our opinion ground taken by the AO has to be dismissed.
Tax the Miscellaneous Income,Foreign Exchange Gain and Other Income under the head ‘Business Income’ - Held that:- We find that AO was of the opinion that assessee had not commenced its business activity and therefore, income received under the heads miscellaneous income etc. could not be assessed as business income. But, in the earlier years it has been held by the Tribunal that income from sub-leasing of premises of the I.T.Parks was the business of the assessee and same was set up/commenced in earlier years and we have followed the order of earlier years. In these circumstances, in our opinion, FAA had rightly held that incomes from foreign exchange gain, car parking, penalty etc. were incidental to the business, carried out by the assessee.
Addition on account of income from sub-lease of land and income under the head maintenance - Held that:- Following our order for the earlier year, we hold that income from the sub lease of land and income under the head maintenance has to be assessed under the head Business income and not under the head Income from Other Sources. As a result, we decide first ground of appeal against the AO.
Addition on account of interest paid on borrowings utilised for construction of house property under section 24 - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee had taken loan for construction of buildings and it had also paid interest. FAA had held that out of the interest of ₹ 2.93 Crores ₹ 2.48 Crores should be allowed as interest expenditure under the head income from house property. From the balance sheet it is clear that the assessee has interest amounting to ₹ 2.48 Crores was capitalised. Therefore, FAA was justified in holding that it represented work in progress. For the balance interest payment of ₹ 45 lakhs he held that same was allowable under either of the heads. In our opinion,if interest has been paid by an assessee; for acquiring or constructing assets that are used for earning taxable income; then his claim for interest expenditure has to be allowed. Therefore, confirming the order of the FAA - decided against revenue
Treatment of maintenance income - assessed as income from other sources or business income - Held that:- To be held that the income received by the assessee as maintenance income has to be assessed as business income. - decided against revenue
........
|
