|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1311 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... laim of the assessee and even similar issue traveled to the Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Sons (supra). The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue, and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court vide Income Tax Appeal No.209 of 2001 for A.Y. 1985-86, Dt.2.4.2004 and Tribunal Order in assessee’s own case for A.Ys 1981-82 and 1982-83 in ITA Nos.3846 & 3847/Mum/84, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the revenue. 13. In so far as C.O filed by the assessee is concerned, it is similar to the ground No.1 raised by the revenue, since we have already considered the issue and dismissed the revenue’s appeal, there is no separate adjudication is required with regard to the C.O. 14. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the C.O. filed by the assessee is rejected. Pronounced in the open Court on 23rd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1310 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... st to be charitable in nature, the examination which is necessary at the stage of examining the applications of section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act by making regular assessment are not that much relevant at the time of processing the application for registration. In our considered opinion, the learned Commissioner has gone deep into the aspect and has tried to conclude that the Trust is not carrying or pursuing its main object of providing education. It is undisputed that the Trust is running a nursing college which is a charitable activity, indeed. Therefore, in our opinion, the Trust is entitled to registration at this stage. What the Commissioner has looked into is to be looked into at the stage of making assessment of a particular year. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner to grant registration to the Trust, and allow the claim of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 22nd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1309 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... orders of the assessing authority on this point are not erroneous. At the worst, the view of the assessing authority is one of the possible views. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (109 Taxman 66) has held that in order to revise an order under sec.263, the order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the present case, it is not possible to hold that the orders are erroneous. Therefore, we find that the revision proceedings of the Commissioner of Income-tax are liable to be set aside. So also it is not possible to hold that an order is erroneous if the Assessing Officer has adopted a view possible in law. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the revision orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax are not sustainable in law. They are set aside. 7. In result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 15th of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1308 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... provision made for NPA are decided against the assessee following the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in assessee’s own case, 318 ITR 435. 15. The issue regarding disallowance of provision for NPA while computing book profit u/s 115JA is decided against the assessee in view of Explanation(g) to section 115JA inserted by Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.1998, as was done in earlier appeals. 16. The issue of disallowance of lease equalization charges while computing book profit u/s 115J is allowed in favour of the assessee by virtue of the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision (supra). 17. The last issue regarding charging of interest u/s 234B, being mandatory but consequential, the Assessing Officer is directed to give consequential relief, if admissible, to the assessee. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. 19. To summarize the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1307 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... learly emerge from the orders of the authorities below. However, it is pointed out that as per the assessee the correct interest leviable ought to be ₹ 70,898 only. Accordingly, it was prayed that the matter be set aside to the file of the AO to enable the assessee an opportunity to explain the correct working of the interest chargeable under s. 220(2) of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative has not seriously disputed the prayer of the assessee on this score. As a result thereof, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of recomputing the interest chargeable under s. 220(2) of the Act, after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The AO shall redetermine the interest chargeable under s. 220(2) of the Act after considering the. submissions of the assessee in accordance with law. Thus, on this ground the assessee partly succeeds. 43. Resultantly, the three captioned appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1306 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... .10.2005 17.10.2005 November 2005 14073 (ESIC) 24.12.2005 20.12.2005 January 2006 14916(ESIC) 22.2.2006 14.2.2006 In the absence of any supporting material placed on record by the assessee to show that as per actual date of payment the amount has been paid within the grace period, as stated by him in the grounds of appeal, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall decide the same afresh in the light of our observation hereinabove and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes . 7. In the result, assessee's appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1305 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... in turn, deployed these funds for generation of power, therefore, this fact alone is sufficient not to make any disallowance. Even, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (15 ITJ 329) considered the newly inserted provision of sec. 14A of the Act along with rule 8D stating how the disallowance of direct and indirect expenses incurred for earning exempted income is to be calculated. In the present appeal, the assessee company decided to install non-conventional power unit as per the scheme of the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh for deferred of salestax/ Central sales-tax, on the basis of investment made in nonconventional power generation unit, therefore, no interest is disallowable as per the decision from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee (supra). Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 15th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1300 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at section precludes such disallowance of expenditure ? iv) Whether the Tribunal should have held that the assessee’s plea for a direction for alternative relief to the extent of the deferred liability for excess collection of processing charges in the sum of ₹ 325,15,18,102/- debited in the yearly account of instant year is legitimate and necessary to meet the contingency in the event of success of the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A of the Act and reversal of the Tribunal’s order allowing the cumulative liability of ₹ 613.20 crore on that account for assessment year 1996-97 instead of spreadover ? The appellant shall file requisite number of paper books within two months after Christmas Vacation. Let Notice-of-Appeal shall be served upon the respondents by the Department concerned on usual course. Accordingly the application is disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1299 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... esh Thakur,Adv. ORDER Exemption allowed. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Mr. V. Balaji, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Tag the petitions with S.L.P. (C) No.......CC 18408/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1297 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the assessee u/s 148 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the A.O. at Ludhiana issued notice u/s148 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. The decision of ITAT was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Since the issue is covered by the decisions referred to above in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the A.O. on the basis of assessments reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 by the A.O. at Faridabad is bad in law. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment. 6. Since, we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the Revenue’s appeal and the C.O. is in support of the order of Ld. CIT(A), the CO filed by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO. filed by the assessee is allowed. 8. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 9th December 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1296 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng (supra), we hold that the cash seized from the assessee was liable to be adjusted against the instalment of advance tax due on 15.03.2009 and in that respect the interest under sec. 234B and 234C is to be computed accordingly. At this stage, we clarify that the interest chargeable under sec. 234C in respect of the amount of instalment of interest already fallen due on 15th September, 2008 and 15th December, 2008 shall be charged inasmuch as the cash seized on 19.01.2009 cannot be adjusted against the liability of advance tax fallen due on 15.09.2008 and 15.12.2008. The Assessing Officer shall recompute the interest chargeable under sec. 234B & 234C accordingly after giving credit of the amount seized against the advance tax liability fallen due on 15th March, 2009. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld with the above observation. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 14. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 10th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1295 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er dated 24/11/2000 of M/s Vrindavan Lal Goverdhan Lal is not genuine. The fact that the agreement for letting out the premises to ICICI Bank Ltd. is for a period of 15 years, clinches the issue in favour of the assessee as they become the deemed owner under the provision of section 27 iiib r.w.s. 269UA(F)(I) of the Act and accordingly is entitled to deduction as provided u/s.24 a of the Act. The decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in 8 SOT 441 and Calcutta Tribunal in 89 ITD 199 covers the issue in this case in favour of the assessee and accordingly we hold that there is no mistake in the order of CIT A in holding that the assessee is the deemed owner of the premises u/s.27 iiib of the Act and the order of the CIT A is confirmed and grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed.” Following the above order, we decide this issue against the Revenue. 3. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1294 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ould be restricted to that extent which result into net income to the extent of returned income. The AO should pass necessary order as per law as per above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. Regarding AY 2002-03, it has been submitted by the 12 ITA-1725 to 1727/D/2009 assessee that no working can be made available regarding expenses of this year. Hence, for AY 2002-03, we confirm the order of CIT(A) because in this year only commission from PIA, Singapore has been brought to tax and no income on account of commission from group companies and other income has been brought to tax in this year and therefore, no deduction is to be allowed in this year on account of expenses. As a result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is dismissed whereas the remaining two appeals for AY 2003-04 & 2004- 05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1293 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... eleted the said addition by accepting the explanation of the assessee. Hence the revenue is in appeal before us on this issue. 7. We have heard the rival contentions on this point. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the Partnership Firm is not paying any interest on the credit balance of the Partners. Coupled with the above fact, it is noticed that the net capital balance of all Partners put together shows a credit balance only. The Assessing Officer has also not established that any of the borrowed funds has been diverted. In these circumstances, we agree with the decision of the learned CIT (A) in holding that there is no question of presuming that the funds of the assessee firm has been diverted for personal purposes, so long as there exists an overall credit balance. Accordingly we uphold the view of the learned CIT (A) on this issue. 8. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 21st December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1291 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... become imposable in case the Supreme court on an appeal upset the decision of the court rendered in the case of the firm. This reasoning was unsustainable and the orders of penalty were liable to be quashed.” 6. In the light of above discussion we find that in the case under consideration, there is no satisfaction of the assessing officer recorded. The original quantum order based on which the penalty proceedings are initiated has also been set aside by the ITAT. In the light of that we are of the considered view that the penalty initiated in the original assessment proceedings and levied on the basis of the satisfaction recorded in the original assessment proceedings which have been set aside by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer is hereby quashed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1287 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... le purposes in the year. Moreover, in the next financial year the assessee received donation from the donee trust Sri Sri Mohanananda Brahmachan Medical Welfare Trust to the tune of ₹ 5,22,5151-.” 9.1 When the Bench pointed out the above statement of facts submitted by the Revenue, the Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Assessee, could not contradict these facts with supporting evidence. Again, when the Bench proposed to set aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, the Ld. Counsel has not objected to it. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this requires fresh verification. Hence, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matters to the file of the AO to re-decide the same, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). We order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1283 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... is would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue . The AO had not shirked his responsibility of examining and investigating the case.. Apparently, the AO was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding genuineness of the claim for deduction of commission. A change of opinion or view would not enable the CIT to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act more so, when the AO had considered the details and the explanation offered by the assessee. Change of opinion by reappraising the evidence is not within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. In view thereof, we set aside the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and quash the same. Therefore, ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal are allowed. Consequently, ground no. 4 does not survive for our adjudication . 8. In the result , appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on16-12-2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1278 - ITAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... emption u/s 11 to the assessee when there was clear violation u/s 13(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the question of law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing accumulation u/s.11(2) of the I.T.Act without appreciating the facts that purpose of accumulation was not specific.” 3. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the materials available on record, it is observed that the issues in the appeals are related to the issues already decided in the appeals by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 205/206/Kol/2010 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 wherein we have set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration before the AO. Since these are related matters, we set aside these appeals of the Revenue also to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1276 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ess will be short circuited if the matter is decided for the first time by us. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the DRP to hear the assessee in the matter and decide it as per law. 5. In so far as addition on merits is concerned, we have already reproduced the operative portion of the order of the DRP u/s 144C of the Act. The order does not disclose the facts of the case, contentions raised by the assessee and the process of decision by which it has been held that TP adjustments have been correctly made. Therefore, it can be said that the order has been passed without application of mind and accordingly it does not meet the requirement of principle of natural justice. Therefore, we think it fit to restore this matter also to the file of the DRP for hearing the assessee again and passing a speaking order as per law. 6. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1271 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ent. Rather, it is the terms of this very agreement that the department is referring to hold MCL, to be the actual employer of the expatriate personnel.” 9.1 The tribunal further distinguished the case law referred and concluded in para 27 is as under - “27. In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee in this regard is found to be justified and is accepted as such. We hold on the basis of the above discussion, that MCL has wrongly been held to be the agent of the expatriate personnel. Accordingly, all that succeeds such treatment is also quashed.” 9.2 Since the facts of the present cases are identical in assessee’s own case, adhering to the doctrine of staire decises, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 10. In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/12/2010 upon conclusion of hearing.
........
|
