2016 (2) TMI 800 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Rectification of mistake - adjustment of the business loss against long term capital gains - assessee contended that Section 71(2) uses the expression may indicating that they have an option either to adjust or not to adjust the business loss against capital gains - Held that - We do not think that the view taken by all the three Authorities is contrary to law. It is true that under Section 71(2), the assessee may set off, against other income assessable for the assessment year under the head capital gains , the loss, if any, arising out of computation of different heads of income. But, Sectio ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 239 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
M/s Karnavati Export Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-4 (2) , Ahmedabad
Set off of business loss against interest income taxable under the head income from other sources - non existence of business activity - Held that - As assessee has accepted that no business activity has been carried out during the year under appeal and the expenditure claimed in the profit and loss account was a write off of asset which was standing in the books of account. Such write off could have been allowed only if there had been a business activity running during the year. We, therefore, are of the view that as the assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year under ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 1084 - ITAT DELHI
NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. Versus ACIT Circle-13 (1) New Delhi And Vica-Versa
Eligibilty to claim deduction u/s 10A - Set off loss of eligible unit against the business income of the assessee rejected - Held that - In the circular no. 7/DV/2013 FILE NO.279/MISC./M-116/2012-ITJ , DATED 16-7-2013 at para No. one that it has been brought to the notice of the Board that the provisions of 10A/10AA/10B/10BA of the Income-tax Act, with regard to applicability of Chapter IV of the Act and set off and carry forward of losses, are being interpreted differently by the Officers of the Department as well as by different High Courts. Therefore, it cannot be said that circular is agai ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 236 - ITAT CHENNAI
M/s. Super Auto Forge Private Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI (4) , Chennai
Disallowance u/s. 14A - Held that - The assessee company has made investment from earlier years and received dividend income every year and demonstrated that funds utilized for investments are surplus funds or interest free funds. The assessee earned exempt income ;1,64,06,932/-. Since Rule 8D provisions was introduced with effect from 24.03.2008, which was prospective in operation and cannot be regarded as being retrospective as held by Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT 2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court . However, incurring certain administrative expenses cannot ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 807 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Officer, Ward-8 (1) , Ahmedabad Versus The Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. And Vica-Versa
Set off of accumulated losses against Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) AND Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) even beyond 8 years - CIT(A) allowed the claim - validity of orders of BIFR - Held that - Since the order of BIFR is inconsistent with the provisions of IT Act as far as setting off of accumulated losses beyond eight years against capital gain are concerned. But still BIFR order will prevail over the inconsistent provisions of IT Ac ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 430 - ITAT KOLKATA
I.T.O., Ward-2 (3) , Kolkata Versus M/s. Last Peak Data Pvt. Ltd.
Deduction u/s.10AA - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - 10AA was brought in along with the consolidation and quick development of export initiatives in all the units, past, present and future, located in SEZ s or which were in existence in all parts of India even prior to the promulgation of the SEZ Act, 2005. It is important to note that, for the first time, this section extended the exemption coverage to Computer IT ES besides computer software. The SEZ Act itself was brought into effect from 10th Febtruary, 2006, and was made applicable for and from AY 2006-07 and in respect of units se ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 634 - ITAT CHENNAI
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-II (3) , Chennai Versus M/s. ISC Investments & Finance P. Ltd.
Loss set off against the interest income - continuity of business activity after sale of business - whether entire undertaking is not sold as stock-lock barrel and there is no slump sale? - Held that - As the assessee has not transferred the entire undertakings but only portion of it was transferred by way of business transfer agreement and the assessee has carried on the business of job work of outsourcing of ATMs business in the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and earned income of ₹ 12.81 crores with the very same M/s. eFunds International P.Ltd. to whom part of the business was al ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 1065 - ITAT KOLKATA
Sri Deo Kumar Saraf Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-49, Kolkata
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - bogus speculation profit - Held that - In the present case, the assessee has disclosed income from speculation profit only and the case is that he could not prove that this is speculation income or any other income for the want of evidence and merely he has not challenged the quantum addition. Assessee may file an appeal against an order of imposition of penalty even though he might not have filed an appeal against the order of assessment. The assessment proceedings are quite distinct and different from penalty proceedings. Although the order of assessment is a ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 587 - ITAT CHENNAI
M/s. Erode Annai Spinning Mills P. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore
Depreciation of earlier year was not allowed to be set off against the income offered as unexplained cash deposit made in the account of axis bank - Held that - As decided in Chandra Kumar v. ACIT 2009 (11) TMI 549 - ITAT MADRAS-A according to section 71(2A) of the Act, if the net result of computation of income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession is a loss, then a set-off of such loss cannot be made against income assessable under the head Salaries . Once unabsorbed depreciation us considered as part of current depreciation, the net result of computation under the head ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 2175 - ITAT MUMBAI
Shri Nitin Chandrakant Desai Versus ACIT-11 (1) , Mumbai
Gifts made - whether transaction resulted into transfer of capital asset u/s 45 giving rise to capital gain? - CIT(A) confirming the application of provisions of Section 50B to the aforesaid gift made by the assessee - Held that - Fact worth mentioning is that in the gift deed dated 31/12/2007, the signatories are the assessee on one part and in second part also the assessee and Ms. Neha Nitin Dessai (as Director of the Company), thus, the donor and the donee, as a signatory, are the same person, thus, gift to himself, under the facts available on record, is quite unjustified. Further, as per ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 1261 - ITAT LUCKNOW
DCIT, - 6, Kanpur Versus M/s Dinesh Oils Ltd and Vica-Versa
Loss incurred in share dealing - CIT(A) allowed the set off against income from brokerage and commission - Held that - As per the exception in Explanation to Section 73, if more than 50 of the Gross Total Income of the assessee consists of income chargeable under Four heads excluding income from business, then the provisions of Explanation to section 73 are not applicable. There is no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) on this aspect because the same is in line with the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Narain Properties Ltd. (2012 (6) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 877 - ITAT KOLKATA
Linc Pen & Plastics Limited Versus Deputy Commis sioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-VII, Kolkata and Vica-Versa
Deduction under section 80IB disallowed - CIT(A) excluded from the profits eligible for deduction under sect ion 80IB, i.e. Rebate on Central Sales Tax payable as per Schedule 10 of Pilerne Unit and Commission on High Sea Sales payable as per Schedule 11 of other operational income - Held that - By considering the totality of the facts, we restore both the issues to the file of Assessing Officer for considering it afresh regarding eligibility of these two items, deduction under section 80IB in accordance with law in the light of decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty Indi ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 694 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Krishnamegh Yarn Industries Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Stock of raw material disclosed at the time of survey - Whether can be added both u/s 69B as well as 69C of the Act? - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that during scrutiny, the assessee himself has disclosed the fact that in his books of account, he had shown less stock to the tune of ₹ 10,06,987/-. It is also an admitted fact that when the physical stock was examined by the authority, the value of the said stock was ₹ 13,33,485/-, however, as per the books of account, the value of stock was to the tune of ₹ 3,26,498/i.e. amount to the tune of ₹ 10,06,987/- was not ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1873 - ITAT DELHI
Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (4) , New Delhi Versus M/s. Inbev India International Pvt. Ltd.
Allowance of pre-operative expenses against the income from other sources - setting up off business losses against the income under the head income from other sources - Held that - The Assessing Officer had not determined the business losses by holding that the respondent assessee company had not commenced his business operations and he doubted the trading activities carried on by the assessee company on the ground that the trading activity allegedly had been carried as a sham since the sales were made prior to the purchase of beer. From the order of learned CIT(A), it is clear that though he ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 605 - ITAT BANGALORE
M/s. Sterling Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) , Circle-12 (3) , Bangalore
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - It is not disputed that there was no dividend or exempt income claimed by assessee during the relevant previous year. Other income shown by the assessee in its Schedule 15 shows dividend income as nil. No doubt there is a sum of ₹ 160,701,177/- appearing as miscellaneous income in the P & L account. However, this was the subject of an analysis by the AO wherein the AO himself has given a finding that ₹ 16 crores was remuneration received by the assessee for development of properties and not any income considered as exempt. In any case, computa ....... - .......