|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1355
... ...
... ... ..... assessee. The approach of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal cannot be accepted as the deposits which were credited in the accounts of the assessee had not been explained satisfactorily by the assessee, and, thus, it could not be held that the assessee had discharged the onus placed on him to show that it was his income from the sale of land. Once it is held that the onus was wrongly placed on the Department and the assessee had failed to produce any cogent and convincing material to establish that the deposits were on account of sale of land, the addition made by the assessing officer could not have been deleted and the finding as recorded by him could not be held to be perverse. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were, thus, not justified in reversing the finding of the assessing officer and thereby deleting the addition. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1354
... ...
... ... ..... e ESOP Scheme, resulting in benefit to the employees and thus constituting remuneration of the employees was, allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in proceeding to hold that options discount arising under the stock options scheme was not allowable deduction, thereby ignoring the view taken by the earlier co-ordinate Bench duly placed before the Tribunal, without referring the issue to a larger Bench? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under section 254 of the Act by not confining its decision in the impugned order to be questions arising in the appeal but making out an altogether new case holding that the options discount arising under the stock options scheme was ?notional loss? not eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Act?? Filing of paper books is dispensed with. To be heard alongwith ITA 767/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1353
... ...
... ... ..... shall be reduced by the amount of income tax which would be deductible at source during the said financial year under any provision of this Act from any income. By virtue of section 195 all the payments made to the assessee are subjected to deduction of tax at source. Under these circumstances, the assessee cannot be said to have committed any default in not paying the advance tax for which the liability to pay interest u/s 234B could be fastened on it. Our view is fortified by the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del.) (SB), which stands impliedly affirmed by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in D.I (International Taxation) VS. NGC Network Asia Ltd. (2009) 222 CTR 86 (Bom). Respectfully following the precedent, we accept the opinion of the learned CIT(A) on this count in ordering deletion of the levy of interest u/s.234B. 4. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1350
... ...
... ... ..... part of the money borrowed on interest is utilized for making investment in shares or in the house property, Assessing Officer will consider the allowability of part of the interest under the respective heads of income. In this context, we may also observe that in case, assessee failed to furnish the necessary details and also the nexus, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to disallow the deficit of interest keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Virmati Ramakrishna (supra). In view of the above, we set aside the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer who will readjudicate the allowance of interest afresh in terms of direction given hereinabove after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 28.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1348
... ...
... ... ..... was for acquiring the stock-in-trade. Therefore, the advance made to the Corporation was in the course of carrying on the business of real estate. Accordingly, the loss on forfeiture of the advance is in the revenue field. The assessee has not acquired any capital asset. It has also not obtained any advantage of enduring nature so as to constitute the expenditure to be capital expenditure. Accordingly, it is held that the loss has been incurred in revenue field in the course of business. Therefore, the same is deductible in computing the total income. 5.1 We, however, agree with the findings of the lower authorities that it is not a case of bad debt, covered under sections 36 and 37, because it was not taken into account while computing the income of this year or an earlier year. The amount is deductible as loss on first principle u/s 29 of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above. This order was pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1345
... ...
... ... ..... the Revenue. 4.2 With regard to penalty for the assessment year 1996-97 is concerned, as per assessee’s counsel, the matter has been set aside in ITAT’s order in I.T.A. No. 1435/Mds/1999 with respect to sale and lease back in respect of 8 transactions to the file of the ld. CIT(A) at para 23 in page 23 of the compilation filed. In view of the facts and details furnished by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we find it just and appropriate to set aside the orders of both the authorities below for the assessment year 1996-97 and restore the matter back on the file of the Assessing officer with the direction to redecide the same afresh after decision in quantum appeal is taken as directed by the ITAT and while doing so, the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. As a result, appeal for the assessment year 1996-97 is allowed for statistical purpose and other appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on 03.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1339
... ...
... ... ..... ot refer the relevant facts and therefore, the revenue cannot raise such ground before the Tribunal. As seen from the orders of the revenue, this issue has come up for the first time before us and there is no data on if the assessee was earning any income in the capacity of the MLA, if it is a fact. Basic facts are required to be brought to the records in the interest of the justice. 15. Thus, in our view there are many lacunae in the orders of the revenue and impugned order was passed without bringing basic facts necessary for administration of law judiciously. Therefore, we are of the opinion, all the grounds raised in the appeal of the revenue has to be set aside to the files of the AO. AO shall redo the assessment pro-tanto after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are set aside. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Orders pronounced in the open Court on 10th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1337
... ...
... ... ..... that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Held, that the assessee which was manufacturing textile goods had set up a windmill after March 31,2002. It was entitled to additional depreciation.” 4. Therefore, by following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision (supra), we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 5. The other ground of Revenue’s appeal relates to allowance of additional depreciation on windmill. It is an open and shut case because this issue has been churned day in and day out by this Bench. This issue also stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in assessee’s own case wherein additional depreciation on the cost of windmill has been allowed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Consequently, we cannot allow this appeal of the Revenue and hence dismiss the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1336
... ...
... ... ..... make verification. The ld. Sr. DR advanced his arguments which are identical to ground raised whereas through ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order. After hearing the rival contentions, there is a factual finding in the impugned order that the necessary details were furnished by the assessee along with returns enclosing the certificates of such deduction at source. The TDS was deducted on the interest income credited to P & L A/c and offered in the return of income. This factual finding was not controverted by the revenue. In view of these facts, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, this ground of the revenue is also having no merit. Same is dismissed in both the appeals of revenue. Finally, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel of both sides at the conclusion of hearing on 9th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1334
... ...
... ... ..... al on record. In our considered view all the three items are covered by the decision of the Tribunal for Asst. Year 2003-04 & 2004-05 and also for Asst. Year 2005-06 which has been decided on even date. Since no new facts are pointed out by the Revenue, respectfully following the above decision we decide in favour of the assessee and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 13. The Cross Objection No.153/Ahd/2010 Asst. Year 2007-08 filed by the assessee is in support of the order of ld. CIT(A) and since departmental appeal is dismissed the C.O. is also dismissed. As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed. 14. In the result, ITA No.4075/Ahd/2008 for Asst. Year 2005-06 is partly allowed and ITA No.1346/Ahd/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 is dismissed and the CO No.153/Ahd/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 is also dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 10/12/10.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1329
... ...
... ... ..... y under section 271(1)(c) if he files inaccurate particulars of his income in the return or conceals the particulars of income therein. There can be no concealment until there is a duty to disclose. The duty to disclose particulars of income arises at the time when assessee furnishes return of income under section 139 and if in filing his return he conceals the particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars he incurs penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of Patna Guinea House vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 0274 (Pat) it is held that there is no case for levy of penalty if income is disclosed in the return of income but assessee has refused to disclose source of income.” Therefore, following the above decision of the Tribunal, we cancel the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 10.12.10.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1327
... ...
... ... ..... icial pronouncements referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee. However, it is clarified that if in the past estimation of income had been done before allowing depreciation then the Assessing Officer will be justified in allowing depreciation in these years also and not otherwise, because only like things can be compared.” 4. But, in the given case, the A.O. has simply made ad hoc addition without referring to either the past history of the assessee or to any comparable case. He has mentioned so many other things which are not relevant for the purpose. Although the A.O. himself has accepted in the next year a net profit of 1.78% in assessee’s own case, yet the ld. CIT(Appeals) has adopted the rate of 2.5%. The assessee has not filed any appeal. Therefore, we do not interfere in the findings of the CIT(Appeals) and confirm his order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 22nd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1326
... ...
... ... ..... d. Here. On the other hand, the windmills were connected to the grid and as already noted by us, its operation atleast for a negligible part of the day could not be denied. Nevertheless we find from the order of the AO that not only hadhe denied the claim of depreciation, but also came to a conclusion that the quantum of depreciation even if allowed, was to be limited to ₹ 43,39,469/-. Since facts relating to the quantum are not readily available on record, we are unable to come to a conclusion as to what is the actual amount of depreciation allowable to the assessee. Hence, while holding that assessee was eligible for 50% depreciation on two windmills, we remit the issue regarding quantification of depreciation back to the AO. Assessee shall be given necessary opportunity for producing evidence regarding the quantum of depreciation. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 03 -12 ---2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1324
... ...
... ... ..... person.” A plain reading of the above sub-section would show that only a compensation or consideration which has been enhanced by a court, Tribunal or authority could be deemed as income chargeable to capital gains when such amount is received by the assessee. Here, there is no case for the Revenue that Smt. Chitra Chockalingam was a Tribunal, court or authority. Thus Sec. 45(5) (b) had no application whatsoever. We are of the opinion that both authorities below erred in considering the transfer to have been effected by assessee for the previous years relevant to asst. years 2000-01 and/or 2002-03 for property with address at No.149 Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai. No capital gains could have been assessed in these years. 10. In the result, we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in both the appeals. Addition made under the head capital gains for both the years are quashed. Appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 16-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1323
... ...
... ... ..... and in such circumstance, the CIT(A) has gone wrong in limiting the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. 5. Nobody appeared for the assessee respondent. We heard Shri Shaji P Jacob, the learned Commissioner for the Revenue. The CIT(A) has held that in a revision matter the Assessing Officer is to carry out the directions issued by the CIT. In fact, the assessing authority is translating the directions of the CIT in an enforceable action. Literally speaking the assessing authority is not exercising ‘his own’ jurisdiction but exercising the jurisdiction “delegated” by the CIT. 6. The delegatee can not go beyond the limit prescribed by the delegating authority. The Assessing Officer can not go beyond the directions of the CIT. Therefore, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the said disallowance. 7. This appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday the 23rd of December, 2010 at Chennai.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1321
... ...
... ... ..... nfirmed. Further as it is noticed that the provision no longer required and which is credited to the P & L Account is on account of the purchases made by the assessee, it has a direct link with the business activity of the undertaking and the exports of the articles or things is as a consequence of the purchase. By writing back the provision no longer required, what happens is that the purchase cost goes down consequently increasing the export income as it is the profits and gains derived by the undertaking from the export of the articles or things which increases the same would be entitled to the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Rahman Industries, referred to supra, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 10. The order was pronounced in the court on 10/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1320
... ...
... ... ..... ough this stock exchange then the information supplied by this stock exchange would be totally irrelevant. The purchase of shares were not doubted by the AO in the year of purchase, if that be so then, the mode of purchase, whether in the open bid or private placement may not be a crucial aspect for doubting the transaction. It may be a corroborative evidence. All these inferences were not analytically established on the record, rather he just made an inference for doubting the transaction of the assessee. In our opinion the issue required a deeper investigation. Therefore we set aside the orders of both the revenue authorities below and remit the issue to the file of AO for readjudciation. It is needless to say that observations made by us will not impair or injure the case of AO or would cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 6.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1319
... ...
... ... ..... per the terms of the agreement does not fall under the Explanation to Section 37(1). As far as the nature of loss is concerned since the assessee in the business of sale- purchase of the property/ land, therefore, the earnest money paid by the assessee was for purchase of plot of land which should have been stock - in-trade of the assessee and not for acquisition of capital asset. Accordingly, loss due to the forfeiture of the earnest money deposited cannot be a capital loss. The earnest money deposit was made by the assessee was not for acquiring of any capital asset for investment or business assets but it was deposit for the business of the assessee i.e the sale and purchase of land. Accordingly, the forfeiture of earnest money in the case in hand is a business expenditure. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and the claim of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1318
... ...
... ... ..... wed to move further which itself shows that the amount collected by the RTO was not the payment towards infringement of law but in the nature of compensation. From the various details furnished by the assessee, we find the amount has been paid to Gujarat RTO. Therefore, the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agrawal Roadlines P Ltd (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Respectfully following the said decision and in view of our observations above, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer ITA No. 2081/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year 2005-06 ) and upheld by the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the overload charges paid to RTO by the assessee has to be treated as compensation and not penalty for infringement of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 31st day of Dec 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1316
... ...
... ... ..... e Inv. Wing of the department was relied on, without verification of the facts qua-the-assessee. The assessee successfully explained the entries. 9. In view of the above, none of the case laws relied on by the department is applicable, since there is no applicability of section 68 of the Act, as parties concerned were not creditors of the assessee. 10. For the above discussion, finding no justification on the grievance raised by way of ground no.2, this ground is rejected. 11. Apropos ground no.3, the addition of ₹ 16,500 was made by the AO on the basis of alleged possibility of commission have not been paid for obtaining the accommodation entries of ₹ 8,25,000. The CIT(A) deleted this addition. 12. Since the deletion of the addition of₹ 8,25,000 has been upheld, ground no.3 also loses force and is rejected as such. 13. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. 14. Order pronounced in open court on the conclusion of the hearing on 07.12.2010.
........
|
