2016 (4) TMI 205 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Bengal Green Field Housing Development Co. Ltd.
Eligibility of deduction u/s 80IB - whether CIT(A) is justified in treating WBIHDCO as Local Authority for allowing deduction u/s 80IB although it does not fall under the categories as defined in Section 10(20) of the I.T.Act? - Held that - The order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference. The only reason assigned by the AO for not allowing deduction u/s.80-IB(10) of the Act was since the housing project in question was approved by WBHIDCO and since income of WBHIDCO is not covered by Explanation below section 10(20) of the Act and the housing project of the Assessee, it cannot be sa ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 298 - ITAT DELHI
Luxmi Rice Mills Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal.
Disallowance of rent to Warehouse contract payment to NBHC u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS - Held that - In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee reimbursed the salary to the guards of the bank and there was no contract in between the assessee and NBHC. Guards were deputed by the bank, but the expenses were reimbursed by the assessee. The assessee reimbursed the expenses to the bank and the bank ought to have deducted the TDS when there was a contract in between the bank and the NBHC, but there was no contract between the assessee and NBHC. Therefore, provisions of se ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 415 - ITAT DELHI
Addl. CIT (TDS) , Ghaziabad Versus Canara bank, Sector-06, Noida.
Liability to deduct tax at source u/s 194A on interest paid to NOIDA - lack of jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(A), Noida for passing order against the order of Addl.CIT(TDS), Ghaziabad - Held that - The Principal CCIT, Kanpur issued order on 15.11.2014 reverting jurisdiction to the CIT(A), Noida over the orders passed by Addl.CIT(TDS), Ghaziabad and the other authorities working under CIT (TDS), Kanpur. This shows that between 5.6.2014 and 15.11.2014, the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to pass the orders against the orders passed by the Addl.CIT, Ghaziabad rested with the CIT(A), Gh ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 620 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3 Noida Versus M/s. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
Reopening of assessment - requirement of issuance of notice - exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 10(20) was not tenable as it was not a local authority within the meaning of Section 10(20) - ITAT allowed assessee s appeal - Held that - It is clear that the essential requirement is issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The deeming fiction under Section 292BB of the Act is with regard to service of notice . Since the initial requirement of issuance of notice was not made by the Assesssing Officer, the deeming fiction of service of notice under Section 292BB of the Act, ....... - .......
2015 (4) TMI 512 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Thane And Others Versus Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron And Steel Market Committee
Entitlement to benefit under section 10(20) - Commissioner rejected claim for exemption under section 11 mainly for the reason that this claim was not made in the original return and that Form 10 and audit report in support of this claim are not filed before the Assessing Officer - AO directed by ITAT to take into account the registration granted under section 12AA with effect from 1st April, 2003, and the audit reports as well as the other documents filed in support thereof - Held that - Case of the assessee is peculiar. It was not the assessee s fault inasmuch as it got into a legal tangle. ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 347 - ITAT PUNE
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2 (3) , Jalgaon
Penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) - the assessee did not file the returns of income as per the provisions of Sec. 139 and the assessee was issued the notices u/s. 148 - Held that - It is not in dispute that the assessee was treated as a local authority u/s. 10(20) of the Income-tax Act up to the A.Y. 2002-03. Subsequently, there was an amendment to section 10(2) of the Incometax Act and the APMC was removed from the definition of the local authority. It is pertinent to note that the Finance Act, 2008 has introduced Sub-sec. (26AAB) to Sec. 10 and again the income of the APMC has been exe ....... - .......
2014 (5) TMI 401 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-I Versus Kandla Port Trust
Registration u/s 12AA - port trust to control the activities at a major port for utilizing and creating facilities. - Charitable Purpose - profit motive Exemption u/s 11 of the Act - Held that - For a trust to claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act from the property held wholly for charitable or religious purposes it has to apply for registration u/s 12A and such application has to be considered by the Commissioner as per the procedure laid down u/s 12AA of the Act - The port trust under the Act would control the activities at a major port for utilizing and creating facilities - Agencies utilizing ....... - .......
2014 (2) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Rajkot Municipal Corporation
Income from hoarding whether income from business or income from other sources - income of Municipal Corporation- Held that - The Corporation merely charges licence fees to regulate granting licences for putting up hoardings in its property - If the Corporation, permits hoardings to be put up in its property by issuing licences, for which it charges licence fees and also charges licence fees from the owners allowing hoardings to be put up in their private properties, the same cannot be said to be business activity of the Corporation - Such licence fees are collected for regulating the activity ....... - .......
2013 (11) TMI 212 - ITAT DELHI
ITO, Ward-1 and others Versus Cane Development Council, Chini Mill Compound and others
Taxability of grant in aid - local authority u/s 10(20) - whether assessee was an organ of the state as such immune of Article 289 of the Constitution - Whether only surplus remaining after allowing expenses as per the account of the assessee should be brought to tax - Held that - There is nothing to suggest that the assessee is carrying on any business activities, generating income. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that there was no surplus with the assessee and therefore, there was no question of any taxable income. Admittedly, the grant-in-aid in question is a financial aid or subsidy ....... - .......
2012 (10) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus M/s. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Trust - application of income for charitable purposes - assessee, a Market Committee incorporated and registered under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 - assessee collects fees etc and transfer to Mandi Parishad for utilisation of same for charitable purposes and purposes as guided by State Government or the Board - Revenue contended that amounts transferred by the assessee to Mandi Parishad cannot constitute application of income for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) in view of the fact that the assessee Mandi Samiti is only a conduit which colle ....... - .......
2012 (10) TMI 362 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Fortuna Foundation Engineer & Consultants (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Lucknow
Exemption u/S 80IB(10) - date of completion of project - Held that - In section 80IB(10) it has been made emphatically clear that if the housing project is approved before 1st April, 2004 and is completed before 31.3.2008, the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) and through its Explanation (i) it has been made clear that the date of completion of construction of housing project shall be taken to be date on which completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt in the interpretation of Ex ....... - .......
2012 (8) TMI 305 - ITAT, MUMBAI
Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) -1 (1) Versus Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Charitable purpose - denial of exemption u/s 11 - local authority created by the Government of Maharashtra claiming exemption of its income as per section 10(20A) till A.Y.2002-03 and subsequently on withdrawal of Section 10(20A), registered u/s 12A - assessee contented that AO is not entitled to examine whether such Trust or Institution was created for charitable or religious purpose or not once it was registered u/s 12A - Held that - Principles laid down in the case of Gujarat Maritime Board (2007 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) are squarely applicable to assessee s case wherein it was ....... - .......
2012 (8) TMI 514 - ITAT, PUNE
Income Tax Officer, Versus Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of particulars - alleged violation of provision u/s 13(1)(c) by letting-out shops on long lease to the relatives of Directors who are the persons as referred to u/s 13(3) and claiming exemption u/s 11 - Held that - As CIT(A) noted that AO himself mentioned that it is from facts mentioned in the audit report in Form No.10B filed by the assessee that the possible violation of Section 13, in fact, came to the AO s notice. In that view, appellant cannot be said to have either concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, and even the provisions of ....... - .......
2012 (8) TMI 120 - ITAT INDORE
Indore Development Authority, Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 5,
Addition for non furnishing any basis of valuation of closing stock and estimation of work in progress - Held that - As the assessee has not maintained day to day quantitative details of plots and other properties sold during the year under consideration and only on the basis of lay out plans of various schemes, inventory of unsold stock was prepared and the same was valued at cost price method - various registers produced contained only details of vacant plot and flat details, but basis of valuation of closing stock could not be worked out on the basis of these registers - as findings recorde ....... - .......
2012 (4) TMI 452 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
M/s. Agriculture Produce Market Committee Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla.
Whether the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 10(20)- Held that - Since the AMC(s) is neither a Municipal Committee nor a District Board under the said Explanation to section 10(20)of the 1961 Act no question arises whether the AMC(s) is legally entitled to the control of the local fund i.e.Market Fund - AMC(s) is therefore not entitled to exemption under section 1 ....... - .......