|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 192 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 838 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... language as well as in paramedical and training courses. It is not necessary to spend any surplus money in the same year. The requirement of section 10(22) is fulfilled if the Appellant carried on educational activities for educational purposes." 3. From the above recorded findings, which are primarily based upon the appreciation of the record and are primarily finding of fact, it was found that the assessee was carrying on the educational activities in learning of the language and as such there is nothing for this Court to interfere in this finding of fact concurrently recorded by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal. 4. We may also notice that for the other assessment years the appeal preferred by the Department against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has already been dismissed by another Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 13th September, 2004 passed in ITA No. 544/2004 relating to the same assessee. No merit. Dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 837 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mits and were agricultural land was not exigible to capital gains. 4. Feeling aggrieved the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has considered the report dated 19-6-1987 filed by the Income-tax Officer and upheld the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the land in question was situate beyond the municipal limits and agricultural operations were carried on till the date of transfer of the land. Therefore there was no capital gains. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the land was agricultural land and stood beyond eight kms. of the municipal limits of Saharanpur it was not included in the definition of capital assets as given in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Thus there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. We answer the question of law referred to us in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 830 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s or things, an issue which presently is not in dispute before us. It is also noteworthy that the assessing authority in the earlier assessment year i.e., 1995-96 has allowed the claim of the assessed for deduction under Section 80-IA. Therefore, having regard to the parity of reasoning initiated in the case of CIT v. J.B. Kharwar & Sons (1987) 163 ITR 394 (Guj) and Nu-look (P) Ltd. (supra), in our view, the assessed could not be denied the benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA on the incomes represented by processing charges. Hence, in our view, the conclusions drawn by the CIT(A) do not require any interference from our side." 2. We have also perused the order passed by the AO. There is no discussion, much less a plausible evidence before the AO to show that the unit of the assessed was not involved in manufacturing activity. In any case it is a finding of fact which we are not called upon to interfere under the provisions of Section 260A of the Act. Dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 818 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... l Representative carries no weight. In view of the facts mentioned by the authorities below, I agree with the AAC that the assessee-firm is an industrial undertaking and accordingly relief under section 80J was rightly allowed following the ratio of the decision mentioned in para 1 of the impugned order. His finding is accordingly upheld." This Court in CIT v. Sultan & Sons Rice Mill 2005 272 ITR 18111 had held that various processes starting from purchase of raw material and till sale of finished goods formed the integral part of manufacturing process and the workers employed in this process are the workers employed in the manufacturing process. 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid judgment we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no illegality in allowing deduction under section 80J of the Act. 6. We, therefore, answer the question in affirmative i.e. against the department and in favour of the assessee. There shall be however no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 772 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... e. Therefore, the issue would fall outside the purview of the powers of the Tribunal vested under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Exercise of powers by the Tribunal under section 254(2) in allowing such applications would amount to review of the orders which is not permitted under the law. Therefore, these applications deserve to be rejected on this count. Thus, in the light of these detailed discussions and legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the appeals by relying on Instruction No. 1979 dated March 27, 2000 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and such issues fall outside the scope of rectification mentioned under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue will now go to the regular Bench for final disposal for a limited purpose whether the tax effect in these cases exceeds the prescribed monetary limit fixed by the Board.
-
2005 (2) TMI 771 - ITAT MUMBAI
Applicability of limitation on deduction of expenses, set out u/s 44D - nature of services - expenditure incurred in earning the professional receipts - profit attributable - liability to tax - PE in India - DTAA between India and Singapore - business in India through a branch office - binding precedent - HELD THAT:- In our considered view, the scope of “fees for technical services” under article 12(4)(b) does not cover “consultancy services” unless these services are technical in nature. That admittedly is not the case here. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the nature of services rendered by the assessee do not fit into the description of “fees for technical service” under the provisions of the India-Singapore tax treaty. As we have already held, in case the receipts, in respect of which profits are computed under article 7(3), do not fit the description of “royalties and fees for technical services”, the limitation on deduction of expenses u/s 44D does not come to the play. In the case before us, the receipts in question are such in nature that the provisions of article 12 are not attracted. Accordingly, in our considered view, the limitation u/s 44D is not to be applied for the purpose of deduction of expenses, in computing taxable profits, under article 7(3) of the India-Singapore tax treaty. We have already taken note of the position that section 44D, read with section 115A of the Indian Income-tax Act, and article 12 of the India-Singapore tax treaty are, similar in nature and offer alternative but similar models of taxation of income from royalties and fees from technical services, that these are two independent, mutually exclusive, and competing sets of provisions, and that once it is clear that these are competing modes of taxation of royalties and fees for technical services on gross basis, in the Income-tax Act and in the India-Singapore tax treaty, it has to follow that the provisions of the Income-tax Act cannot come to play unless these are more beneficial to the assessee which certainly is not the case here. We have held that in case a receipt is held to be outside the very scope of “royalties and fees for technical services” under the provisions of article 12, the same cannot be taxed under section 44D, read with section 115A either. For this reason also, section 44D and section 115A cannot have any application in the case before us.
We are of the considered view that the limitation on deduction of expenses, for the purpose of computing profits attributable to the permanent establishment in India, and in terms of the provisions of section 44D of the Act, is not applicable on the facts of this case. Our reasoning for arriving at this conclusion is different than that of the CIT (A) but then we agree with his conclusions. Accordingly, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT (A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
In any event, it is certainly not the case that there is a binding precedent in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, even if there is a reasonably possible view in favour of the Revenue, this possibility per se does not clinch the issue. The view that we have accepted and elaborated earlier in this order is an equally, if not more, reasonable and possible view of the matter.
It is well settled in law that when two views are possible, and one of these views is in favour of the assessee, the ambiguity is to be resolved in favour of the assessee. The authority for this proposition is contained in the hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that “if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted”. In the light of these reasons, as also for the detailed reasons set out above, we see no reasons to deviate from conclusions arrived at to the effect that the limitation on deduction of expenses, for the purpose of computing profits attributable to the permanent establishment in India, and in terms of the provisions of section 44D of the Act, is not applicable on the facts of this case.
We also hold that in case the receipts, in respect of which profits are computed under article 7(3), do not fit the description of “royalties and fees for technical services” under the applicable tax treaty, the limitation on deduction of expenses u/s 44D does not come to the play.
In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 769 - ITAT BANGALORE
Rejection of accounts ... ... ... ... ..... same has been considered by learned CIT(A), reduction was allowed. He also relied upon the decision of Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in Triveni Pharma v. ITO 2004 92 ITD 125 (JP)(TM). 6. We have carefully considered the relevant facts and argument advanced, we are inclined to accept the finding of learned CIT(A). The fall in GP is not a criteria to reject the books of account. There is no provision in the Act which suggest that day-to-day stock register has to be maintained or in absence thereof the books of account are liable to be rejected. What is required to invoke proviso to section 145 or to reject book results is to establish the incorrectness and incompleteness of the accounts, or where method or accounting followed by assessee is inconsistent with the accepted method of accounting. Since no such case has been made out by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer is not justified in rejecting the book results and making addition. In the result, the appeals is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 766 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Income escaping assessment ... ... ... ... ..... present case, and the case law relied upon by the ld. counsel of the assessee we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as the same were not within the prescribed time as per the proviso to section 147. We are also in agreement with the findings of CIT (A) that the decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods (supra) was rendered on 15-4-1999 and there was ample time available with the department to reopen the assessment, had the department been vigilant to do so. The time was available with the department up to 31st March, 2001 and the department did not choose to initiate reassess- ment proceedings within the prescribed time. In such a position the department has missed the bus and its action for initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond the said time is unacceptable in law. Thus we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the department.
-
2005 (2) TMI 765 - ITAT CHENNAI
Preliminary expenses ... ... ... ... ..... rein by Parliament. The deductions allowable under the Act have necessarily to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it exists. 10. In view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court, the scope of section 35D cannot be extended beyond its true limits. The word being as is used in the section is not illustrative. It connotes some meaning. Only those expenses which are specified in the statute can be allowed. Nothing further. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Office to recompute the deduction in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. 12. ITA No. 997/Mds./99 - The solitary issue raised in the departmental appeal relates to the allowability of expenditure under section 35D of the IT Act. For the reasons recorded in ITA No. 888/Mds./99, supra, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 764 - ITAT CHENNAI
Business expenditure, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee on the ground that the receipt reduced the cost of the capital asset. Therefore, it was a revenue receipt. The first Appellate authority found that the balance amount left after incurring the expenditure, was capital receipt, therefore, it could not be a taxable income. This view of the first Appellate authority was confirmed by the Tribunal. In those factual circumstances the Supreme Court held that the balance amount of Rs. 7,03,207 represented capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. In our considered opinion, this judgment of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The first Appellate authority by following the judgment of the Supreme Court has rightly treated the balance amount Rs. 17,79,919 as capital receipt. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly we confirm the same. 28. In the result, I.T.A. No. 2704(Mds)/96 is partly allowed and I.T.A. No. 51 (Mds)/97 is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 763 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... cts, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court held that the assessee-company could not claim any relief under sections 70 and 71 since its business had not started and there could not be any computation of income or loss incurred by the assessee in the relevant accounting years. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for assessee, the decisions relied on by the authorities below are factually distinguishable. In the case of the assessee neither setting up factory or erection of machinery is required. The moment the assessee-company incorporated and the amounts advanced, it will lead to the conclusion that the business of the assessee has been commenced. Therefore, I find much more in the stand taken by the assessee. The income shown by the assessee has to be treated as income from business and necessary benefits or deductions claimed by the assessee have to be allowed in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 762 - ITAT CHENNAI
Depreciation, Business expenditure, Assessment - Prima facie adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... the total income of the assessee for assessment year 1992-93, in our opinion, the matter requires a detailed investigation. In other words, the issue arises for consideration is a debatable one. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot disallow the same behind the back of the assessee in the guise of making a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). In our considered opinion, the matter ought to have been taken up for scrutiny under section 143 and an opportunity should have been given to the assessee. In this case, since the prima facie adjustment was made, in our view, it is not permissible under the provisions of section 143(1)(a). The issue arises for consideration requires a detailed investigation. Therefore, it is highly debatable in nature. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and delete the disallowance of Rs. 13,24,424. 15. In the result, ITA No. 369 (Mad.)/98 is partly allowed and I.T.A. No. 370 (Mad.)/98 is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 761 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Cash credits, Unexplained investment ... ... ... ... ..... t of the business. Moreover, according to the decision in the case of Shiv Shakti Timbers (supra), the onus is on the person in whose books of account the credit entries stand and in case of unsatisfactory explanation, the amount can be added to the income of said partner. 13. The said view is also supported by the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Kapur Bros. 1979 118 ITR 741 (All.), the case mentioned in the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue. 14. In view of above factual position, I find that the Assessing Officer was right in adding a sum of Rs. 95,000 to the income of the assessee as in the present case, the same was found credited in the books of account of assessee-firm and assessee did not offer any explanation about the nature and source of the said credit, therefore, the same was rightly added to the income of assessee under section 68 of the Act. Thus, the second ground of the revenue is allowed. 15. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 760 - ITAT BANGALORE
Transfer of assets ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore, Explanation 1 cannot be applicable. Considering the circumstances above, I am of the view that issuance of notice under section 148 was not proper in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the consequential addition in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. 8. For the assessment year 1992-93 assessment under section 144 was framed by the Assessing Officer by clubbing the income of the wife in the hands of the assessee. Admittedly in that year also both the assessee and his wife was having equal amount of income. Thereafter by passing an order under section 154, the Assessing Officer further clubbed the income of the minor daughters in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. This issue was discussed at length in the earlier paragraphs and following the said reasoning, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the order of clubbing of income in the hands of the assessee. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 759 - ITAT BANGALORE
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... n to the value of the asset) will still be capital gain and not income from business. It may be pointed out that in case the assessee had received money in kind from the landlord of Rs. 7 lakhs and spent the same in purchasing part of the land, it would have become a capital asset. In this case, the landlord was probably not in a position to spend and decided to give land in lieu of the compensation to the assessee for developing this property. Besides, the business activity was conducted before getting possession of the land whereas the income in this case is in the form of sale proceeds from the sale of the land amounting to Rs. 29,83,050 which assessee has duly shown as income from long-term capital gain. Therefore, we are of the opinion that we cannot deny the assessee the benefit of indexation and the income should be treated as income from capital gains and not as business income. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 758 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained expenditure, Survey ... ... ... ... ..... examine the assessee in this regard. 17. From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the assessee that out of marriage expenses of Rs. 5,01,100 jewellery worth Rs. 2,25,000 was purchased. The detailed discussion regarding this contention in para 6 on page 6 of the assessment order, wherein, the Assessing Officer has stated that withdrawal shown by the bridegroom side is Rs. 5,01,100 is just sufficient to take care of many other customary, such as (i) Lagna, (ii) Bidai, ( iii) ladies programmes for 5 to 10 days, etc. etc. This aspect was completely overlooked by the CIT(A) while deleting the entire addition of Rs. 10 lakhs. Since, now the matter is restored to his file, the CIT(A) will readjudicate the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs afresh keeping in view the direction given hereinabove after affording opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2005 (2) TMI 757 - ITAT BANGALORE
Estimation of profits ... ... ... ... ..... the ITO and set aside the orders of the Commissioner. On reference, the orders of the Tribunal were approved by the Hon rsquo ble High Court. While coming to a conclusion, the case of Chhabildas Tribhuvandas Shah v. CIT 1966 59 ITR 733 (SC) was referred and considered by the Hon rsquo ble Court. The Hon rsquo ble Court, in nutshell, held that assessee should be subjected to assessment on two different methods though the contract was one and parts of the contractual receipts were received in different years. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in following its view expressed for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. Similar views were expressed by the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal in the case of H.M. Constructions. There is a specific finding by the learned CIT(A) that the project was incomplete. In view of these facts, the order of the learned CIT(A) is correct and no fresh look is required. The same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 756 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... d by virtue of its inherent defect is to be vacated and proceedings are required to be left open. Therefore, we set aside this order and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction that he shall give opportunity to cross examine the three persons namely, S/Shri Suresh Patel, Manoj Vadodaria and Vijay Shah. The Assessing Officer shall further supply all the relevant documents required to be used against the assessee and invite the assessee rsquo s explantion on those materials. The assessee will be at liberty to produce any evidence in support of his explanation. Since we are setting aside the assessment order on preliminary issue, i.e. being passed in violation of natural justice. Therefore, our order shall not impair and injure the case of the Assessing Officer or prejudice the defence or explanation of the assessee on merit. With the above observation, this appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2005 (2) TMI 752 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deductions - Profits and gains from infrastructure undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... statute. Merely on the basis of accounting entry, the assessee cannot claim a deduction which is not available to him under the Act. Similarly on the basis of book entry department cannot restrain or deny a claim of deduction which is otherwise available as per provisions of law. From the order of the Assessing Officer, we find that the case laws discussed by him pertain to sections 80-I and 80HH. We have already discussed above the insertion of lsquo any business of rsquo in section 80-IA, during the assessment year 1995-96 under consideration. 14. In view of the above discussion and in the interest of justice, we restore this ground to the file of Assessing Officer to examine assessee rsquo s claim under section 80-IA in the light of composite contract for supply of goods manufactured by it to the destination and amount received on such sales, if part of sales itself. We direct accordingly. 15. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part for statistical purpose.
-
2005 (2) TMI 751 - ITAT BANGALORE
Rejection of accounts ... ... ... ... ..... may determine. Still, there must be a basis and a manner, which is subject to scrutiny by the higher authorities or even by the Court. On the other hand, if the finding on any of the question No. (1), (3) or (4) is in the negative (no), section 145(2) applies and the Assessing Officer may make a best judgment assessment in the manner provided in section 144. Even, there the books may not be disregarded altogether. The assessment may be adjusted to cure the extent of the infirmity found, so as to make it a lsquo best judgment rsquo assessment. Since the Assessing Officer failed to point towards any defect in the accounts whereby he was of the opinion that income cannot be properly deduced therefrom, the Assessing Officer is not justified in rejecting the book results. We, accordingly, set aside the assessment order and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the loss declared by the assessee and allow the same in accordance with law. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
........
|
