2014 (9) TMI 317 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Maruti Securities Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax
Addition of notional interest accrual of interest - uncertainties exist - Benefit of circular dated June 20, 1978 - The interest income has been recognized in the books of accounts only to the extent of actual collection, which is the recommended/ recognized method as per Accounting Standard 9 of ICAI - Held that - To arrive at a real income, accrual basis cannot be a justifying factor and the commercial and business realties of the assessee, should be considered - The interest income has been recognized in the books of accounts only to the extent of actual collection, which is the recommended ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 600 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Suvistas Software Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Income Tax Officer
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - aggrieved person - filing appeal on behalf of company - revenue contended that Shri R.Subba Rao was neither a Director nor a Managing director of the assessee company on that date, he is not a person authorised either to file the return of income of the assessee company on that date as per S.140 of the Act - Held that - a person who is Managing Director or Director, as the case may be, of the company, on the date of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is only auhorised to sign and verify the appeal filed before the Tribunal in the case of a company. In the present ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 51 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
The DCIT, Chandigarh Versus M/s Kudos Chemie Ltd.
Penalty under section 140(3) read with section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act , 1961 - Available funds utilised for expansion purposes - Notice served on an employee who not forwarded the same to the management - Held that - The CIT(Appeals) condoned the delay in filing the said appeal as the impugned penalty order was not served upon the assessee. The revenue is aggrieved by the said condonation order passed by the CIT(Appeals) . We find no merit in the pleas raised by the ld. DR for the revenue in this regard in view of the observations of CIT(Appeals) in para 4 of the appellate order.Upholdin ....... - .......
2013 (9) TMI 478 - ITAT MUMBAI
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. JSW. Steel Ltd.
Interest u/s 244A(b) - Rectification of error in assessment done - whether interest u/s 244A is to be paid on on self-assessment tax paid ignoring the Explanation section 244A(b) - CIT allowed interest on refund - Held that - Even though the short title to s. 140A reads as self-assessment, the charging phrase employed in s. 140A, namely, where any tax is payable on the basis of any return required to be furnished under s. 115WD or s. 115WH or s. 139 or s. 142 or s. 148 or s. 153A, as the case may be, the assessee shall be liable to pay such tax together with interest payable under any provisio ....... - .......
2012 (8) TMI 281 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income-tax Officer. Ward-10(3) (4) Versus Strides Arcolab Ltd.
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee claimed dividend income as exempt u/s 10(33) - Held that - On considering the magnitude of profit with the company and the investments made in these shares of Kothari group, it can be easily noticed that the profit for the relevant year itself was much more than the amount of investment & coming to the investments in the shares of Dena Bank in financial year 1996-1997 it is observed that the share capital of the company far exceeds the amount of investment in shares as at the end of such financial year - that if there be interest free funds available to the ....... - .......
2012 (4) TMI 292 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Ajay Ispat (P.) Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1)
Plea for admission of appeal for waiver of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) assessee being defunct company struck off from the records of ROC on 27.05.2010 - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on ground that since company is non-existent, there cannot be any director who can sign the verification for the filing of appeal Held that - It is surprising that Revenue has considered the said company as existing for levy of demand and penalty and on other hand dismissed the appeal on ground of it being non-existent. Therefore, in a situation, where a defunct company can be revived and the directors are responsi ....... - .......
2011 (8) TMI 660 - Karnataka High Court
Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Micro Nova Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.
Refund on appeal u/s 140 - Block assessment - notice issued under section 158BC - (i) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to refund of interest collected under section 158BFA(1) of the Act when the refund is calculated applying section 240(b) of the Act? (ii) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that interest under section 158BFA(1) of the Act does not form part of the liability of the assessee at the point of filing the block return? - Held That - On the annulment of the assessment proceedings, there would be no assessed ....... - .......
2010 (10) TMI 856 - Punjab and Haryana High Court
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pure Drinks New Delhi Ltd.
Penalty u/s 140 - failure to deposit the entire amount of advance tax - as per assessee default in making payment was on account of financial stringency due to destruction of equipments and material during riots - Held that - Tribunal in the assessee s case relating to earlier two assessment years thought it appropriate to give benefit on account of difficulties faced by the assessee because of riots and fire on 1.11.1984. As certain breathing period should be reasonably allowed to the assessee on account of unprecedented and unfortunate incidents on account of which it suffered extensive dama ....... - .......
2009 (9) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HARYANA SHEET GLASS LTD.
Doctrine of relation back return - If the irregularity in the original return is curable, then the doctrine of relation back would apply, on the other hand, if there is a fundamental defect in the original return, which cannot be cured, then such a doctrine cannot be applied. It is clear that the secretary has signed the return who is otherwise, as per the provisions of the Companies Act, is competent to sign. The provision of section 140 of the Income-tax Act mandates that the managing director or some other responsible officers can sign. Because of this reason, we are of the opinion that in ....... - .......
2009 (8) TMI 847 - ITAT MUMBAI
Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-12
....... - ...... ing the defects within the prescribed time or as further time granted by him under sub-section (9), then the Assessing Officer shall examine the claim of capital loss on merits. If such a claim is found to be correct then he will allow the carry forward of such loss for the reason that removal of defects shall validate the original and revised return filed by the assessee in time. 51. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
2009 (4) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Prime Securities Limited Versus Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Defective return - removal of defect - Person competent to sing the return - once Section 140 of the Act mandates that the return has to be signed in the case of a company by the Managing Director and where Managing Director is not available by any Director thereof, it is not possible to hold that the signing of the return by the Company Secretary is merely an irregularity return to be treated as defective but such defective return can be removed u/s 139(9) - Even if the defect has the ....... - .......
2009 (1) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HARJINDER KAUR.
Defect in return validity - return does not even bear assessee s signatures and had not even been verified by her - Section 292B of the 1961 Act, do not authorize the Assessing Officer to ignore a defect of a substantive nature impugned return was an absolutely invalid return as it had a glaring inherent defect which could not be cured i ....... - .......
2008 (7) TMI 393 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MOTI RAM (DECEASED) (through his legal heir Dharam Pal)
Return whether null and void signature u/s 140 assessment u/s 143(3) legal heirs deceased person can or can not authorized a person to represent his case or to sign his return held that - the return was filed on 28.11.2003. On that day, the assessee had already expired. The return filed with the signatures of the assessee after his death cannot be taken as a valid return filed by the assessee himself. Undisputedly, the return was neither signed nor verified by the legal heirs of the deceased. - Therefore, the return filed in this c ....... - .......
2008 (6) TMI 292 - ITAT PUNE-B
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
....... - ...... notice under section 143(2) was not served in time, and this finding has not been challenged by the Assessing Officer. As a result of this legal position, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was time-barred. The impugned assessment is, accordingly, set aside, and the income returned by the assessee is directed to be accepted. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.
2008 (3) TMI 495 - Punjab and Haryana High Court
Hind Samachar Limited Versus Union of India
Return Rectification of mistake - non-signing of the return of income by the managing director - technical and curable defect in view of the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act Held that - if the return of income is not signed by the person mentioned in section 140, it is only a curable defect and ....... - .......