|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1270 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he date of the receipt of the order passed today along with the application for condonation of delay, the said authority shall condone the delay and dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of six months. It is open to the petitioners to file additional documents before the said authority. As conceded to by Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent that the said authority shall enter into communication with the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax of Uttrakhand and try to get documents, if any, with regard to the amount that was realized from the petitioners. We hope and trust that the appellate authority shall conduct a proper inquiry and make an effort to mitigate grievances of the petitioners as they have put forth with substantial force that the amount was recovered by way of attachment by the Tehsildar, Dehradun at the instance of the Income Tax Officer. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1268 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ference that income of the assessee has escaped assessment and it has come to the notice of Assessing Officer by virtue of the information given by the DIT. He has just noticed what investigation wing has informed him. There is no reference to any specific information, which suggest that assessee has made a bogus claim or it has received any accommodation entries. The facts of the present assessee are far better than the case of Sarthak Securities. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we are of the view that Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the assessment. Therefore, we accept the first fold of grievance raised by the assessee and quash the reassessment order. 6. In view of our above discussion, we do not deem it necessary to go into the question whether addition of ₹ 4,01,000/- is sustainable or not. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 30th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1265 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... rasaran,ASG., Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv., Mr. Arjun Krishnan, Adv., Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Adv., Ms. Anita Sahani,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the Department. Delay condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1264 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ade by the Bench. The case was heard and time given for filing of written submissions. To our mind nothing new is submitted in the written submissions. No case laws are cited. The propositions laid down by co-ordinate benches could not be properly distinguished. No request for constitution of Special Bench u/s 255(3) has been made. After reading the written submissions, we do not feel it necessary to fix the case of oral arguments once again. The written submissions are devoid of merit and are dismissed as such. 22. As we quash the levy of penalty on the ground of jurisdiction, it is not necessary for us to adjudicate the issue on merits wherein the assessee has relied on a number of case laws for the proposition that the levy of penalty u/s 158BFA is not mandatory but discretionary and for the proposition that no penalty can be levied when the issue is debatable. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd Dec. , 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1263 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of expenditure incurred towards Employees Stock Option Scheme - The assessee claimed expenditure on allotment of equity shares for the AY 2003- 04. and allotment of shares under the employment scheme for the AY 2004-05, claimed under the head ‘Staff Welfare Expenses’ and u/s 37(1). AO disallowed the expenditure. On account of the same lapse penalty was levied in the AY 2004-05 and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Against the quantum addition confirmed by the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The penalty levied by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). Against this the revenue is in appeal before us.
HELD THAT:- The decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. [2009 (6) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-I] cited by the DR is directly applicable in the present case and the same squarely covers the issue under consideration against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) shares were allotted by the assessee company to its employees under ESOP at price less than the market price and the resultant difference was claimed as expenditure relying, inter alia, on SEBI guidelines. The Tribunal, however, confirmed the disallowance made by the authorities below on account of the said expenditure after examining all the relevant aspects and after giving elaborate reasons as can be seen from the relevant portion of its order which is extracted from the held portion:
''The receipt of share premium is not taxable and hence any short receipt of such premium will only be a notional loss and not actual loss for which no liability is incurred. SEBI guidelines are relevant for the purpose of accounting but are not conclusive for the purpose of allowing the same as expenditure. Therefore, such notional losses are not allowable under the Act. Therefore, such pay any liability under the claim. Therefore, such notional loss cannot be held to be allowable under the scheme of the Act. It is now settled law that entry or absence thereof in books of account is not conclusive either for treating the amount as income or allowability or otherwise of the expenditure. Thus, only on the basis of entry in the books of account the claim of expenditure is not allowable. ''
Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee and dismiss the ground taken by the assessee.
In the result, the assessees appeals in ITA Nos.1099/H/2006 & 1114/H/2008 are dismissed.
levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, the penalty proceedings stood on different footings. The disallowance of claim of expenditure by the assessee in respect of ESOPS cannot be construed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing of income. The claim of the assessee is based on judicial precedents in the case of SSI Limited cited [2004 (12) TMI 680 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein it was held that;
'' ESOP was a benefit conferred on the employee and a benefit, which could not be taken back by the company. So far as the company is concerned, once the option is given and exercised by the employee, the liability in this behalf is ascertained. The fact is recognized even by SEBI and the entire ESOP scheme are governed by the Guidelines issue by the SEBI. It is not the case of contingent liability depending upon various factors on which the assessee had no control. ''
In view of this, there is a basis for claiming of deduction by the assessee and it cannot be said that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. As such, levy of penalty is not justified. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deletion of penalty and the same is confirmed.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue are dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1262 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... .O. for computing the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D. 14. Having heard both the parties, we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (34 DTR 1)(Bom.) has reversed the findings of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in holding that Rule 8D is retrospective. Therefore, Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2005-06 and, therefore, the directions of the CIT(A) are not sustainable. The assessee’s plea that it had not incurred any expenditure for earning the dividend income has not been considered by the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, as agreed by both the parties, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same denovo after considering the assessee’s submissions. 15. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed while the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1261 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... any show cause notice to the assessee. The AO alleged that all the advertisements have been made either by the Raymonds Company or on behalf of Raymonds Company, which is not totally true and not based on facts. In fact, there is no material on record to support the above contention of the AO. We also find that while making the addition, the AO has not given any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the assessee has filed copy of account of Advertisement Expenses alongwith Bills and vouchers before the Commissioner. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition. In this view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the ground raised by the Revenue and consequently we dismiss the same. 20. Grounds No.5 and 6 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 30.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1257 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... e has not objected for the acceptance of the additional evidences. 8. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the materials available on record, we admit additional evidences filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. It is observed that though M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles (I) Ltd. has mentioned that the payments have been received by cheque, no cheque number has been mentioned and further the dates, appearing in the letter, are also haphazardly mentioned. Therefore, this requires fresh verification. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities on this issue and remit back the same to the file of the AO to re-decide the issue, after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is Pronounced in the Open Court on 01.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1256 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t on what basis the said entry was said to be accommodation entry. Further, the assessee is also under an obligation to show that the entry taken by it was genuine and assessee can place all the material to substantiate its statement regarding genuineness of the entry. Keeping in view all these facts, we are of the opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of the AO with the limited purpose to examine the genuineness of the cash credit entry received by the assessee from the third party. The AO will readjudicate this issue after providing the assessee reasonable opportunity of hearing and after providing the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence in the possession of the department on the basis of which it was said that the said entry was accommodation entry. We direct accordingly. 13. For statistical purposes, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1255 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... law cited by the CIT (A) has no relevance to the issue before us as the issue dealt by the Hon’ble Court was - whether the interest paid to government from the monies borrowed was an allowable deduction or otherwise? 7.4. To sum up - (i) the assessee was entitled to claim as a deduction of ₹ 15 lakhs written off in its books of account u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2)(i) of the Act. (ii) the interest earned from inter-corporate deposits was to be treated as income from business; & (iii) the assessee’s request for treating its claim of writing off of ₹ 15 lakhs as an allowable deduction - as bad debt as per the provisions of s.36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(i) of the Act- has since been conceded to (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee during the course of hearing becomes superfluous and, hence, it has not been addressed to. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1253 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... find that the CIT A clearly determined in his order that the value of excess stock outside the books of accounts was at ₹ 2,62,430/- which is higher than the estimated undisclosed income to be arrived on unaccounted sales as discussed above and hence we feel it proper and just to bring the value of excess stock of ₹ 2,62,430/- as undisclosed income of the assessee company. Accordingly, the undisclosed income of the assessee company for the block period is determined at ₹ 2,62,430/- instead of ₹ 4,38,951 as confirmed by the CIT A . There was no argument advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee on the grounds raised with regard to surcharge and there is no finding by the CIT (A) on this issue. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee with regard to surcharge is dismissed as such. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 10- 12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1249 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... observing that the assessee has deposited employer’s contribution as well as employees’ contribution towards PF and ESIC after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rule but before the due date for filing the return under the Income Tax Act have held that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B as amended by the Finance Act, 2003. 50. Respectfully following the above decisions, we find that there is no dispute that the assessee has made the above payments before the due date of filing of the return, therefore, we are of the view that no such disallowance is called for. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same after due verification and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the assessee are therefore partly allowed for statistical purpose. 51. In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1248 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be assessed as per provisions of Section 44DA and Section 115A of the Income Tax Act. Since the notice dated 31-3-2010 under Section 148 of the Act was issued after a lapse of four years from the end of assessment year 2003-04 i.e. from 31-3-2003, Proviso second appended to Section 147 of the Act would be applicable. Prima facie the question whether the services rendered by the petitioner is a technical service or not, it requires scrutiny in the matter by the Court, therefore, as an interim measure it is directed that till the next date of listing, the assessment proceedings may go on but no final order shall be passed in the assessment proceedings by assessing officer. (Stay Application stands disposed of). Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is allowed four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter for admission/orders. A certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges by 29-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1245 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lty on the tax to be calculated on total income assessed by the AO at ₹ 3,28,357/-.” 7. During the course of hearing, three more decisions have also been pointed out; namely CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt.Ltd. reported at 2008 (304 ITR 308(SC), CIT vs. Aditya Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. reported at 2006 283 ITR 458 (Del) and of CIT vs. Sharmja Cold Storage & Ice Factory Pvt.Ltd. reported at 1998 64 ITD 129 (TM) Patna . 8. On careful reading of all these decisions and particularly the decision of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench as cited (supra), we are of the view that the issue in hand is directly covered by the view already taken therein. In the light of the observation made therein, we have nothing much to add but to direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalty on the income assessed. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee may be treated as partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31/ 12 /2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1243 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... vailable before him. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the forgoing grounds of appeal” 24. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has stated that the assessee does not press the grounds of appeal no.1,3,4 and 5 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 25. The ld. DR has no objection, if these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 26. Accordingly, we dismiss grounds of appeal no.1,3,4 and 5 being not pressed. 27. As regards, grounds of appeal no.2, since we have decided this issue while dealing with the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.4045/Mum/2009 in favour of the assessee, therefore, the appeal of the assessee qua this issue becomes infructuous. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground no.2 of the appeal of the assessee being infructuous. 28. In sum and substance the appeal bearing ITA No. 4045/Mum/2009 is allowed and appeal being ITA No. 2019/Mum/2010 is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1242 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Exercising power of AO by the Addl. CIT - Validity of framing of assessment by the ld. Addl CIT (II) - HELD THAT:- According to tribunal, In the present case, no such document has been brought to our notice by the Department and therefore, very existence of order is in doubt. Under the provisions of law any direction or order transferring jurisdiction over case of any person/assessee or authorizing any officer to exercise and perform the powers and functions of a particular authority, in the present case that of the AO, the order or direction has to be signed by the concerned authorities and in the present case it was the CIT. This letter signed by the Income-tax Officer (Tech.),
In our considered view, the decision rendered by the Tribunal in A.Y.2001-02 of the assessee’s own case in ITA No.744(Luc.)/2004 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, cannot be taken as an order passed by the CIT in exercise of is power u/s 120 or u/s 120(4)(b) or u/s 127. therefore, we quash the assessment order dated 15.2.2005 passed u/s 143(3).
we may also observe that the notice dated 17.9.2004 issued u/s 143(2) is clearly barred by limitation as per proviso to section 143(2) because the same was issued and served upon the assessee beyond the period of 12 months from the end of the month the return was filed i.e. 30.10.2002.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1241 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Undisclosed income of another person u/s 158BD - validity of assessment proceedings u/s 158BC r.w.s. 158BD, when proceedings was initiated after the completion of the assessment of the person searched - In this case, search u/s 132 was carried out in the business premises of M/s. Ohm Organizers, on 29.10.1999. Certain books of accounts and documents relating to the assessee were also seized. The AO having jurisdiction over the case of M/s. Ohm Organizers found that certain investment in purchase of flats/ shops were made by the assessee and payment of on-money was made by him to the builder. Thereafter certain inquiries were carried out from the assessee u/s 133(6) by way of notice issued on u/s.133(6). Further letters were also issued. However, notice u/s 158BD was issued to the assessee on 10.06.2004. In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the legality of action u/s 158BD.
HELD THAT:- We following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Vimal Vadilal Shah,[2010 (5) TMI 889 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] quash the block assessment framed on the ground that notice u/s158BD, which was issued long after completion of assessment in the case of person searched i.e. Ohm Developers.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1240 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ised in this case is in respect of Section 234B of the Act is now stand decided against the Revenue in ITA 209/2009 decided on 30th August, 2010. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1239 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... unal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2003-04 (supra). However, in both the orders, Tribunal has mentioned that calculation of deduction under section 80IB needs verification at the end of Assessing Officer. 3. We, therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 (supra) hold that the activity carried out by the assessee is manufacturing and as such the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act. However, the working of calculation needs verification at the end of Assessing Officer, therefore, the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction that he will verify the working of calculation and will allow the deduction under section 80IB of the Act to the assessee in accordance with law. 4. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 16.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1238 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... , wherein it has been held as follows “that the interest received by the assessee was on deposits made by it in the banks. It was the deposit which was the source of the interest income. The mere fact that the deposit was made for the purpose of obtaining letters of credit which were in turn used for the purpose of business of the industrial undertaking did not establish a direct nexus between the interest and the industrial undertaking and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to get the benefit of section 10A in relation to the interest.” In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, referred to supra, the finding of the learned CIT(A) in regard to these grounds stands reversed. In the circumstances, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 8. The order was pronounced in the court on 10/12/10.
........
|
