|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1237 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as on 31/03/2004 in terms of Rule 115 of the IT Rules,1962 while the assessee admitted before the ld. CIT(A) that its income would go up by ₹ 4,36,729/-. Neither the ld. DR nor the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee placed any material before us, controverting the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A). In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their aforesaid decisions and in the absence of any basis, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ground no.2 in the appeal of the Revenue and ground no.1 in the appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 15. Ground no.3 in the appeal of the Revenue, being mere prayer, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground no.2 in the appeal of the assessee, both these grounds are dismissed. 16. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 31-12-2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1236 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sing Officer to compute the disallowance u/s.14A as per rule 8D, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noted that the question of making disallowance u/s 14A is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment dated 12.08.2010 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Godrej& Boyce Limited Vs. ACIT holding that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in circumstances as are prevailing presently and the disallowance has to be worked out by the AO on some reasonable basis’ and not rule 8D. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the quantum of disallowance, if any, as per the afore noted judgment, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 20th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se and in law, pasteurization of raw milk amounts to manufacture entitling the Appellant to claim deduction under Section 80IB of the Act ? 2. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.510 of 2009.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1234 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... JB, Explanation-1, relevant clause reproduced below - Explanation- 1 - For the purpose of this section, “book profit” means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2), as increased by - (a).. (b).. (c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities; or (d)… (e).. (f).. (g).. (h).. (i) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset. 16. Once the admitted factual position is that the liability was in respect of doubtful debts and also undisputedly an unascertained liability, set aside as a provision for diminution in the value of the assets, therefore the view taken by the authorities below has to be affirmed. In the result, this ground is hereby dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31/ 12 /2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1233 - ITAT MUMBAI
Loss incurred on account of share transactions - disallowed in the absence of any evidence - ‘speculation loss and non-speculation loss - The assessee company has stated its business activities as mainly share and stock broking, investment and trading in shares and securities. So far as the addition of ₹ . 58,11,372/- on account of speculation loss is concerned, we find the AO elaborately discussed the reasons for such disallowance which has already been brought out in the facts of the case. So far as the share trading loss of ₹ 60,04,791/ is concerned, we find the reasons given by the AO is that the assessee did not furnish the movement of funds pertaining to the purchase of the shares. According to the AO from whatever details furnished by the assessee, it appears that the scrips in which the assessee incurred loss are the same scrips, which the group has manipulated the prices as found out by the JPC and SEBI report. It is the submission of the ld counsel for the assessee that the shares on which losses have been incurred are not the same scrips as per the report of the JPC and SEBI
HELD THAT:- We find before the CIT(A), it was argued that ₹ 58,11,372/- was added in the computation of income in order to arrive at th business income and further addition of ₹ 60,04,791/- was made on the ground that the loss was not genuine. Thus, there is double additions {para 4 of the order of the CIT(A)}. We find this aspect has not been decided by the CIT(A). It is also the case of the AO that the assessee has not explained the differences specifically in those cases where confirmations have not come or where confirmations are incomplete. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh adjudication at the leval of the Or on the basis of the various documents filed before him which appears to have not been properly examined by him. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance on depreciation - membership rights of the Stock Exchange - HELD THAT:- Since this issue was not argued in detail by either of the sides; therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore this issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on stock exchange membership card and in accordance with law. This ground of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
disallowance on account of bad debts - the evidences filed before the CIT(A) as additional evidence submitted that the same should have been admitted by him. He, accordingly, prayed that in the interest of justice the matter should be sent back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. HELD THAT:- Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate its claim of bad debts. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to give one more opportunity to explain the allowability of bad debts of ₹ 1,49,62,136/-. The AO shall decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground taken by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
Claim for miscellaneous income as business income - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that only sundry balance written back on account of provisions u/s 41(1) can be treated as ‘business income’ and the rest of the items like interest, dividend, miscellaneous income, turnover charges collected, commission income, bank charges and de-mat charges etc. has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground of the assessee is accordingly allowed partly.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1232 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... or renewal of registration under sec. 80G of the Act. The assessee has taken a ground regarding its application for registration under sec. 12A of the Act. In the light of this contradictory averment made by the Commissioner of Incometax in his order, we find it fit to restore this matter back to the file of the CIT for his fresh adjudication after ascertaining all the facts and materials relating to the assessee’s application for registration under sec. 12A of the Act and decide the issue after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to produce and furnish all such materials and evidences in support of its application for registration under sec. 12A as it thinks proper to support its case. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court immediately after hearing was over on 8th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1231 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ndia on the sale of tickets/booking of ‘cruise tour packages’ which was done through Star Cruises (India) Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. (SCITC). Accordingly, the orders of the CIT(A) are upheld in both the assessment years. 7. Since the facts of the case under consideration are identical to that of Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, we respectfully follow the order of ITAT in those years and in the light of that we uphold the order of CIT(A) in holding that no income accrues or arises to the appellant in India regarding the business of sale of tickets through the sole selling agent. Thus, the ground raised by the revenue in this regard is hereby dismissed. 8. Since the Cross Objections raised by the assessee are in support of CIT(A)’s order, which was upheld by us in revenue’s appeal, the C.O. becomes infructuous and, therefore, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C.O. of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1230 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t 8 . However, since the benefit of Section 44AD is not available to the assessee, it cannot be put to higher advantage. We direct the AO to compute the income of the assessee accordingly.” o p /o p From the perusal of the above findings, it would be clear that the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that no further deduction on account of depreciation would be justified as the same had been taken care of while applying the net profit rate. The Tribunal had further observed that in case separate deduction on account of depreciation was allowed after application of net profit rate, the assessee would be getting additional allowance when the assessee was not entitled to benefit in terms of Section 44AD. o p /o p In view of the findings noticed above, the judgment of this Court in Chopra Bros’s case (supra) does not advance the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and the appeal is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2010 (12) TMI 1229 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... at the CIT(A) was wrong in holding that Unit II was a separate and independent Unit eligible for the deduction under section 80-IB. o p /o p The Mumbai Special Bench was concerned with an Unit which was not functionally independent whereas the Kerala High Court (supra) was concerned with an Unit which shared a common pipeline and a common boiler house with the old Unit and consequently the closure of the old Unit automatically led to the closure of the new Unit. The judgment of the Delhi High Court (supra), as pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee has been expressly disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. (supra). o p /o p 16. For the above said reasons we are of the view that the orders of the CIT(A) for both the years do not require any interference. They are upheld and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed with no order as to costs. o p /o p Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st December 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (12) TMI 1228 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... sion of jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case reported in 293 ITR 357. It was held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that interest on non-performing assets was to be considered only after recognizing the income from such assets. In addition to that we also find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. in ITA 552/2005, ITA 565/2005, ITA 1191/2007, ITA 139/2008, ITA 466/2008, ITA 537/2008 and ITA 408/2003 dated 29th November, 2010 after referring to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Souther Technologies (supra) as well that of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Elgi Finance Ltd. (supra) held that interest on non-performing assets could not be considered as income on accrual basis. We, therefore, find no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 16th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1227 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... ofit at 12.5 of the gross receipts without bringing out any comparable case in this regard. Therefore we are of the view that the estimation made by the AO is not proper. Since the discrepancies are pointed during the course of assessment proceedings and the AR of the assessee has agreed for the estimation, we are of the view that the net profit rate should be estimated to meet the ends of the justice. We therefore, direct the AO to estimate the net profit of the business of the assessee at 6.5 of gross contract receipts. So far as other addition made on account of self made vouchers, no argument was raised by the ld DR, we therefore find no infirmity in the order of the CIT. Accordingly, we direct the AO to estimate the net profit at 6.5 on gross contract receipts of ₹ 6,71,58,735/- and thereafter no further allowance would be allowed to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Pronounced accordingly in the open Court on 27.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1226 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t. It has been turned as ‘provisional’ allotment, since the said allotment letter was to be succeeded by an Apartment Buyer Agreement, which was to be signed by the allottee within 30 days from the dispatch. This was a legal arrangement between Shweta Estate Pvt. Ltd. and the assessees - allottees, sans which, the transfer of the specific flat could not have been effected. The assessees had paid the initial instalment and had made a proposal with Shweta Estate Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of flat. Shweta Estate Pvt. Ltd. had accepted such proposal and had allotted the specific flat to the assessees and so, there was no ‘provisional’ allotment. 12. In view of the above facts, finding no error in the well reasoned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), we hereby uphold the same, rejecting the grounds raised by the Department in both the cases. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1225 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction u/s 80HHC on unite-wise - HELD THAT:- We find that the plea made by assessee that it is maintaining separate books of account for each unit i.e. units engaged in exports and units engaged in domestic sales have not been considered. In case the assessee is maintaining the separate books of account for both the units and export profit can be deduced separately, the deduction u/s 80HHC should be computed accordingly. The Assessing Officer will also consider the case laws cited by the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the cases of Eastern Leather Products (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [1998 (6) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-A]; CIT v. Rathore Brothers [2001 (10) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, this issue of assessee is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer and allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1224 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... fficer has taken one of the possible views and in these circumstances the impugned assessment orders cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the basis of a subsequent letter. Our attention was drawn to the letter issued by the CBDT. We notice that the CBDT has issued the said letter by placing reliance on the recitals of the said scheme. However, the Assessing Officer, in the instant cases, have compared the facts with the facts of the case of Anant Kumar Agarwal, (Supra), and on being satisfied with the parity of facts, allowed the claim of the assessees. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification in initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act in the hands of these assessees. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Learned CIT passed under section 263 of the Act in the hands of these assessees. 9. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 7th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1223 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ablishment of the assessee situate outside India ;” From the above, it is evident that the “profit of the business” means the profit of the business as computed under the head “profit and gains of the business or profession”. Therefore, if while computing any income under the head “Profit and Gains of the Business or Profession” any disallowance is made then the profit and gains which is determined after making such disallowance would be the profit and gains for the purpose of section 80HHC. We therefore accept the alternate claim of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit of the business as determined by him under the head “Profit and Gains of the Business or Profession. 17. In result, the Revenue’s appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose while the assessee’s appeal is deemed to be partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 24th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1222 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . 4. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same. 5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 626 of 2010 234 CTR 1 has held that Rule 8 D has been notified on 24.3.2008 and will be applicable only from Assessment year 2008-09. The Hon’ble High Court has overruled tribunal decision of M/s Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent, we remit the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer to quantify the reasonable amount. We make it clear as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Rule 8D shall not be applicable for the assessment year 2006-07. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1220 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... onic or other high speed data processing device and includes all input and output devices which are connected to or related to it. Respectfully following the said decision of the Special Bench, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim higher depreciation of 60 on Scanner being an input device which is connected to the computer. As regards the UPS, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled for higher depreciation of 60 thereon as the UPS, in our opinion, is neither an input nor an output device which is connected to or related to the computer. The UPS is an electrical equipment which performs the function of supplying power to the computer without interruption in case there is a failure of main electrical supply. We, therefore, modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to recompute the depreciation allowable to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 31st December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1219 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d the order of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal sustained the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal Held, that the trade advances given to the assessee by C could not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).” 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in fact followed the principles established by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia 177 ITR 393. The same principles were also reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd. 318 ITR 376. In view of these principles, we are of the view that the commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 2(22)(e). Accordingly on merits also we find no case to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds 1,2 & 3 are therefore rejected. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd December 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1218 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iginal documents in the Court itself. 23. The Supreme Court, in Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., observed as under "43.Some additional points also appear to have been raised in the written submissions pertaining to additional objections which were not pressed before us at the time of oral hearing and, therefore, they obviously cannot be considered in support of the contentions on which the appeal was pressed before us." 24. Without making any observations on the merits of the case, as the same may prejudice cause of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that sufficient materials were present in possession of the DGIT (Inv.) Bhopal, to form reasons to believe that the petitioner was in possession of, inter alia, other valuable articles or things, as required under the provisions of section 132(1) of the Act, 1961, to issue warrant of search.. 25. For the reasons and analysis, mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1217 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 9 is concerned, we find that while computing the income of the assessee no such addition is made and therefore this ground of the Revenue is infructous. Even otherwise, the CIT(A) has recorded the finding that the investment in National Housing Bank is duly debited in the assessee’s books of accounts and the same has been made by cheque. This finding has not been controverted before us. The learned DR has also challenged the admission of the additional evidences by the CIT(A). However, we find that the CIT(A) has recorded the reasons for admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A and has also allowed opportunity to the assessee to examine such evidences and submit the remand report. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this point, the same is sustained and the Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 10. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31st December, 2010.
........
|
