|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 733 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 997 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing Mills Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (41 ITD 142) with which no fault can be found. 3. So far as second question is concerned, the same is allowed by the Tribunal, however no challenge has been set up by the Revenue. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. The appeal is without any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (9) TMI 996 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... solution Mechanism suggested in the Budget of 2009 (see section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961). It is made clear that the competent authority will not reject the application herein made by the assessee on the ground that the proposal has come after the cut-off date. The learned Addl. Solicitor General will, accordingly, communicate instructions to the Department. The competent authority will decide the matter notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal before the CIT(A). Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
-
2009 (9) TMI 995 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r sterling. Those donors not only confirm having given the gifts by filing the affidavits in order to prove their credit worthiness. They had even submitted their income tax return as well. The finding of fact is arrived at by C.I.T.(A) which is confirmed by I.T.A.T. as well that the identity and credit worthiness of these persons has been established and it is also established that there are close friends/relations of the assessee. These are pure findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 994 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me to a finding that the requirement of the landlady/respondent was not genuine and there was no need to leave her permanent house at Hyderabad, where she has been living, to come over to Vijayawada to stay alone at the age of 70 years without there being anyone to look after her. This finding of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, in our view, cannot be said to be perverse and arbitrary. o p /o p 15. That being the position, we are of the view that it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its revisonal jurisdiction, to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Rent Controller as well as of the Appellate Authority. o p /o p 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and that of Rent Controller, Vijayawada and the Appellate Authority are restored. o p /o p 17. The application for eviction filed by the respondent stands rejected. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2009 (9) TMI 993 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... itted that the turn over of the assessee is more than 10 crores and he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of AO for computation of deduction in the light of the Special Bench decision of the ITAT dated 1-8-2009 in the case of Topman exports in ITA no. 5769/Mum/06, the benefit of which decision was not available when the learned CIT(Appeals) disposed off the matter. The learned DR has requested for an opportunity in the hands of the Assessing Officer. o p /o p 5. We have gone through the records and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer in relation to the computation of the relief u/s 80-HHC. The Assessing Officer shall compute the deduction by following the order of the Special Bench of the ITAT dated 1-8-2009, in the case of Topman Exports in ITA No. 5769/Mum/06. o p /o p 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal is to be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in open court on -9-2009. o p /o p
-
2009 (9) TMI 992 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smarts (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2008) 166 Taxman 53 (Delhi). In this case it was held that "where the assessee in occupation of rented premises sub-let a portion thereof and claimed that income from such sub-letting was assessable as business income, the department was justified in assessing the said income under 'Income from house property', in view of the fact that the assessee was in full control in his capacity as a tenant, and had earned income by sub-letting of the property. In situations of this type, there is nothing to suggest that ownership of the premises is essential for levying tax under the head "Income from house property". 7. In the background of these aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th September, 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 991 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... th Export Turnover as well as Total Turnover has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Lakshmi Machine Works (290 ITR 667). The same principle has also been upheld in the following judicial pronouncements CIT v Chloride India Ltd. (2002) (256 ITR 625) (Cal.) CIT v Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (2000) (245 ITR 769) (Bom.) CIT v Kantilal Chhotalal (2000) (246 ITR 439) (Bom.) CIT v H M Exports Limited (276 ITR 299) (Cal.) Although the above decision of Hon'ble High Court's has been rendered with relation to section 80HHC/80HHE of the Act, as this section is in pari materia with section 10A of the Act, the ratio laid down in the above decision applies to section 10A of the Act as well. 9.5. In the light of the above said reasoning, we allow the fifth ground raised in this appeal. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 990 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ounsel further pointed out that whereas there are several decisions to the effect that if the conditions specified under section 80-I are satisfied in any year subsequent to the year of commencement of business, the assessee would be entitled to deduction in respect of the profits and gains of that year in which such conditions are satisfied. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Department Representative fairly stated that in the earlier year the deduction was allowed. 7. In view of the above facts, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, respectfully following the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd.(supra) and Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jain Udhay Hosiery (P) Ltd.(supra), we allow the claim of the assessee. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 04/09/2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 989 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Consultancy charges paid to Non-Executive Director of the company - As per AO payment was made just to avoid the tax liability and for non-business purposes - Tribunal came to the conclusion that payment was, in fact, made Non executive director for obtaining the consultancy services in the field of Review of Annual Accounts, Audit Review and Review of Internal Controls, etc. Even the applicable Tax at Source was deducted and paid by the company and also accepted the contention of the assessee that corporate governance and related disclosures were made mandatory by the SEBI Guidelines in the year 2001 and for this reason it was thought expedient by the company to avail the services of Mr. Mirza’s expertise in this behalf - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the aforesaid finding of fact is based on cogent material and it cannot be termed as perverse nor such an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Since it is a pure finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that consultancy charges were paid by the assessee to Mr. Mirza[Non-Executive Director] against actual services rendered, we are of the opinion that no question of law in this regard arises.
Payment for Advisory services in regulatory compliance - Classification of expenditure - According to the assessee, the payment was made as a normal business activity for the aforesaid purpose in order to maintain good and cordial relationship with the shareholders and, at the same time, safeguarding the interests of the existing shareholders - as per AO expenses were incurred for the buyback of the shares, which is directly related to the capital of the assessee. Therefore, he treated it as capital expenditure - Tribunal differed with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) holding that the expenditure in question was not in relation with the share capital of the assessee-company - HELD THAT:- As decided in EMPIRE JUTE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] When the expense incurred relates to the issue of fresh shares, which leads to an inflow of fresh funds into the company, such expenditure is to be treated as capital expenditure and where no such flow of funds or increase in the capital employed, the expenditure incurred would be revenue expenditure, as in such a case the company would not acquire benefit or addition of enduring nature.
In the present case, consultancy fee for advisory services was paid by the assessee-company for buyback of shares. Instead of increase in the share capital, it was going to result in the decrease in funds with the buyback of the shares. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee had not acquired the benefit or addition of enduring nature because after the buyback, benefit or addition of enduring nature would not arise as capital employed had, in fact, gone down. The expenditure incurred had not resulted into bringing into existence any asset. Therefore, it was rightly held to be an expense of revenue nature.. The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that with lesser capital dividend in future payable shall be less and, therefore, it shall be treated as a benefit of enduring nature cannot be accepted.
-
2009 (9) TMI 988 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... further observed that it is the prerogative of the assessee to decide about transfer of cash from one branch to another and income tax authorities cannot dictate that cash should be transferred to head office only by the branch and not to another branch. We find that it is not in dispute that as per the books of account of the Mumbai branch of the assessee, cash balance on the date of transfer was more than ₹ 20 lacs. Thus, the cash in question was out of accumulated cash available with the assessee is not controverted by the revenue. No defect in the books of account of the Mumbai branch could be pointed out by the revenue. On the above facts, we do not find any error in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in deleting the addition of ₹ 20 lacs. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 18/09/2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 987 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f law. “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the interest of intercorporate deposits from the chargeable interest under the Interest Tax Act, 1994?” Post along with Tax Appeal No.1143 & 1144 of 2008 and Tax Appeal Nos.119 & 121 of 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 986 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Filtration Engineering Ltd. Noida Vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, UP, Lucknow decided on 20th July, 2009 and therefore, the remedy of filing appeal under the UP Vat Act would be only illusory as the conflict has to be resolved by this Court. o p /o p The goods have already been released and the penalty proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner vide notice dated 6.8.2009. As an interim measure, it is provided that further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 6th August, 2009 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 2, Chandausi, Moradabad shall be kept in abeyance. o p /o p
-
2009 (9) TMI 985 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng year." Once interest is regarded as revenue receipt then it would fall within the mischief of Section 4 of the Act which is a charging section. Therefore, it follows that TDS under Section 194 A of the Act is to be paid by the petitioner in respect of the interest income on the delayed payment. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that interest income would partake the character of the enhanced amount of compensation which is agricultural income has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed." Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, no doubt is left that the issues raised in the instant petition are squarely covered by our judgment rendered in the case of Karnail Singh (supra). Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed in terms of our judgment rendered in the case of Karnail Singh (supra).
-
2009 (9) TMI 984 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the case cited supra in the event courts' should find that the present satisfactory provision viz. clause (g) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 115JA of the Act is found to be wanting and not valid in terms of the constitutional provisions and to that extent liberty may be reserved to the assessee to claim such benefit to have the case decided in accordance with that and to reserve liberty to the assessee for such course of action. 18. However fortuitous may be the circumstance in favour of the revenue, we are not in a position to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee for the reason it is a request posed on a premise in the area of speculation and courts will not embark on predictions on the basis of hypothetical situations or to speculate as to what can be the possibility on the happening of a future contingent event. 19. It is for this reason we decline to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the assessee.
-
2009 (9) TMI 983 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... would be 90.5 . The CIT(A) has correctly stated in the instant case that the yield in the year under consideration worked out to 90.88 . It is also seen that in the AY 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the CIT(A) has deleted such addition vide his order dated 05-12-2003 in assessee’s case. It seems that the Revenue has not challenged the orders of the CIT(A) in appeal before the Tribunal relating to AY 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any valid ground for interfering with the order of the CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order after appreciating the facts of the case as well as materials available on record. We do not see any reason for disagreeing with the CIT(A). In that view of the matter, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 9. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25-09-09.
-
2009 (9) TMI 982 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... es is totally misplaced, especially when the assessee did not submit the requisite details before the AO or the ld. CIT(A) and even before us while similar disallowance has been upheld by the ITAT in the A.Ys.1989-90, 1995-96 and 1996-97. In view of the foregoing, especially when there is no material before us to take a different view in the matter, we have no alternative but to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in these two assessment years. Therefore, ground no.5 in the appeal for the AY 1999- 2000 & ground no.4 in the AY 2000-01 are dismissed. 15. Ground nos. 2 and 3 in the appeal of the Revenue, being general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground in the appeals of the assessee, all these grounds are dismisssed. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while those of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court this 25th September, 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 981 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a partner in the assessee firm as karta of the HUF whereas the interest is paid to him on the deposit made by him in his individual capacity. We do not see how this makes any difference to the position. According to section 40(a)(ia) any interest payable to a resident will be allowed as a deduction only if the tax required to be deducted therefrom has been deducted and paid to the government. Section 194A requires a firm paying interest to deduct tax from the payment. The assessee has not done so. Therefore, the interest cannot be allowed as a deduction. The assessee has not been able to show any provision in the above sections or in the Act under which the interest payment is exempt from tax deduction. Accordingly, we uphold the orders of the income tax authorities and dismiss the grounds. 5. The other grounds relating levy of interest are consequential. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 18th September, 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 980 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... efore, the assessee will be eligible for deduction of enhanced amount under section 80IB of the Act. However, in the subsequent year in which TDS is paid by the assessee, the expenditure will be allowed as deduction from the eligible profits of the subsequent year and thereby the eligible profit of the industrial undertaking will be reduced in the subsequent year and consequently the assessee will be eligible for deduction under section 80IB at the reduced amount only. Thus, there cannot be a double deduction to the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Learned Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IB in respect of entire profit derived from industrial undertaking, after taking into consideration the provisions under section 40(a)(ia). Thus, the ground of appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 18/09/2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 979 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. The Civil Appeals are dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 978 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the bank and the money was admittedly spent for acquiring land for construction of a college. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) as well as ITAT rightly concluded that the donations received towards corpus of the trust would be capital receipt and not revenue receipt chargeable to tax. No question of law arises. Dismissed.
........
|
