|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1216 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ame. The statement of Shri Pradeep Jindal remains unauthenticated and, therefore, very little evidentiary value can be attached to it. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the addition. As mentioned by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., once the identity has been proved and the contributors have admitted to the contribution, the department should have taken action in their cases. This has also been reiterated by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in last paragraph of his finding. We concur with this finding also. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is upheld. 4.1 In view of aforesaid finding, the grounds taken by the assessee in the cross objection about validity of making the assessment u/s 147 become infructuous. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. This order was pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1213 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... w the claim of the assessee which is not warranted under the law. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts on record, rightly held that explanation to section 73 is not applicable to the case of the assessee because it has not suffered any low on sale and purchase of the shares. The learned CIT(A) also on appreciation of the evidences on record rightly held that the assessee was holding the shares and sold during the year under consideration as investment. The finding of facts recorded by the learned CIT(A) have not been disputed through any material or evidence on record. Once, the shares are held as investment, any gain or loss suffered on account of sale of the same shall have to be taxed under the head capital gain. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 6. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1212 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Act. The assessee had not claimed any exemption under the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act i.e. in connection with the income which is exempt in the hands of the assessee. The deduction was claimed under chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act which had been allowed by he Assessing Officer while computing the income for the year under consideration. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the disallowance computed by Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case where the assessee had not claimed the dividend income exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, we find support from the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Kings Exports (supra). o p /o p Upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. o p /o p 15. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 9th day of December, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (12) TMI 1210 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 7th Nov., 1997, ₹ 52,000/- there were sufficient cash withdrawals from AWI and from SBI, Mayapuri, but this addition has been confirmed by learned CIT(A) on the basis that there is time gap between the assessee’s withdrawals from his own partnership M/s AWI or from his own bank., There is finding recorded by the learned AO or by learned CIT(A) that apart from depositing these cash into bank as explained by the assessee, there was any other user by the assessee of these amounts and in the absence of that, simply because there was a time gap, the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected and hence the addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not correct. We, therefore, delete the same. This ground of the assessee is allowed.” 6.3 Thus, this ground is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1209 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s of authorities below. It is pertinent to note that due to submission of Form No. 15G by Manibhai A. Patel, HUF, the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the interest paid to the said party. The assessee has filed the copy of written submission submitted by Manibhai A. Patel, HUF for the assessment year 2005-06, which clearly indicates that its assessed income for the assessment year under consideration is only ₹ 47,268/-. This also supports the contention of the assessee i.e. tax at source was not deducted from the interest paid to Manibhai A. Patel, HUF because he has submitted the Form No. 15G. By considering the totality of the facts, we are of the view that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given cogent reason in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,60,757/-. We, therefore, decline to interfere. o p /o p 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. o p /o p The Order was pronounced in the Court on 10.12.2010 o p /o p
-
2010 (12) TMI 1208 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... in the Memorandum of Association of a society or trust is found to be charitable in nature, registration u/s 12AA should invariably be granted and the application of funds and the activities carried on by it has to be examined at the time of making of assessment order for a particular assessment year. The ld. CIT has fairly conceded that the objects of the society are charitable in nature, but the charitable activity could not be exhibited on record. We are of the considered opinion that when the objects of the assessee-society are charitable in nature, the society must be granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act. But when the assessments are considered, the aspect of the relevant provisions allowing exemption from tax, may be deeply scrutinized and considered into. Consequently, we order the ld. CIT to grant registration u/s 12AA to the assessee-society. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1207 - ITAT INDORE
Assumption of jurisdiction and framing of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C - satisfaction - notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 153-C - Mandatory conditions - unexplained bogus Purchase u/s 69C - rejection of books of account - depreciation of Wind Mill - HELD THAT:- The legal requirement of recording of such satisfaction cannot be substituted by appraisal note which is prepared by the search party after completion of search insofar as such appraisal note is a secret document prepared by the department for their internal use, contents of which are not conveyed to the assessee nor its copy is supplied to the assessee even on making a written request. The appraisal note so prepared by the department is meant to monitor after the search proceedings are over so as to ensure exhaustive assessment of all searched person with respect to their correct income and to plan a strategy for further deep inquiry and investigation of documents found during the course of search.
Since copy of such appraisal note is not supplied to the assessee, it cannot be taken at par with the requirement of recording of satisfaction note as stipulated u/s 153C of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement. What is the legislative intent of such satisfaction and in what manner it should be recorded has been dealt with in the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Manish Mahehwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT] and G.K. Drive Shaft [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, we are not inclined to agree with the proposition that the appraisal note prepared by the department should be treated as a satisfaction note as required to be recorded in terms of section 153C of the Act so as to empower the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter frame assessment u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act.
Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) who has quashed the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act. Further, the detailed finding recorded by the ld CIT(A) with respect to recording of satisfaction has not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A), quashing the assessments framed u/s 153C of the Act in the cases of all these assesses.
So far as various additions were made by the Assessing Officer on merits, The findings recorded by the ld CIT(A) for partly deleting the additions on merits have not been controverted by the department, we, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with such finding of the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, even the part of additions deleted on merit by the ld CIT(A) require no interference.
As we have already upheld the order of the ld CIT(A) in entirety, even for the additions/disallowance sustained by him on merits, nothing was brought by the learned counsel for the assessee to our notice to persuade us to deviate from these findings of the ld CIT(A), accordingly, all the grounds taken in the cross objection are also dismissed in terms of the findings recorded by the ld CIT(A).
Additional ground was taken by the assessee to the effect that since no adverse material was found during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer or otherwise, therefore, the assessment is bad in law and unjustified. As we have already confirmed the order of the ld CIT(A) in annulling the assessment itself framed u/s 153C of the Act, we do not see any valid reason in the technical ground raised by the assessee in the form of additional ground. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee in all the years are dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1206 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Bench of the Tribunal has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Escorts Ltd. (199 ITR 43) wherein held that where capital expenditure is allowed as deduction, no depreciation is allowed on such capital asset in terms of clause (iv) of S.35(2) of the Act, but observed that in the case of a charitable institution, such a specific provision was not available under S.11 of the Act. The Tribunal in the case of Kamineni Educational Society (Supra) has further observed that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Escorts India (Supra) was not applicable to the trusts, as their income was required to be computed in terms of S.11 to 13 of the Act. We, being in agreement with the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in Kamineni Educational Society (Supra), decide the issue in favour of the assessee and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are rejected. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 3.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1205 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ginal return by filing the belated return of income, the offer of the impugned gains under the head short term capital gain which is held by this Bench of the Tribunal as proper, we are of the opinion that the assessee’s case is covered by the above referred decisions of the Tribunal of both Lucknow and Delhi Benches. In any case, this is the case where assessee came forward to undo the claim made in the original return and in this decision of the Tribunal, we find there is an element of voluntary act on part of the assessee, though it is done belatedly. In any case, the department has not brought out any incriminating material to demonstrate the impugned penny stocks in question were purchased for converting the unaccounted money into accounted money. Accordingly, we are of the opinion this is not fit case for levy of penalty. 8. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 08th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1204 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... considered by the ld. CIT in his order under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal had also noted that the issue on merits is not in favour of the assessee, therefore, requires consideration by the Assessing Officer who is to compute the actual deduction in strict compliance to the provisions governing the said claim. 5. As the facts have not been clarified either by the Department or by the assessee on this issue, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in view of the fact that both the assessment years have to be considered separately on the issue involved, therefore, gives a legitimate right to agitation by the assessee on the appeal before the Tribunal on the order of the ld. CIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are considered to be allowed for statistical purposes as noted above. The order was pronounced in the Court on 16th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1203 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... that the foreign tour was undertaken to explore new business opportunities. The vehement contention of the assessee was that since the payments have been made through “A/c.payee cheque” by the company and the expenditure was duly debited to the accounts of the company, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the Assessing Officer to disallow an adhoc 50 amount of the claim. On that very basis, firstly in the case of company no such disallowance should have been made, however, in any case, it was not fit for levy of penalty. We find force in the contentions of the assessee and, therefore, deem it fit to direct not to levy a penalty in respect of an adhoc disallowance which pertained to a claim which was made by a company towards foreign tour expenditure of one of its Director. We hold accordingly. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 23/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1202 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e donor and genuineness of the gifts in the matter. The revenue has, therefore, rightly raised specific grounds in the grounds of appeal that the explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory and that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohankala & Others (supra) has not been considered in the matter while deleting the addition by the learned CIT(A). Thus, the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proving the creditworthiness of the donor and the source of the gift and genuineness of the gift in the matter. The assessee has also failed to discharge the onus on him to prove the genuineness of the gift in the matter. We accordingly, do not find any justification for the learned CIT(A) to have deleted the addition in the matter. We accordingly, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO. o p /o p 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced on 23-12-2010 o p /o p
-
2010 (12) TMI 1201 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - Whether purchases are genuine even though backed by defective bills? - assessee failed to produce seller in order to substantiate his claim - onus of burden to prove regarding the genuineness of purchases - HELD THAT:- The assessee did not make any effort to controvert the finding recorded by the DDIT (Investigation) and it made no efforts to produce the seller parties on the other hand it claimed that it is not his responsibility to produce the seller. It is a settled law that onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchase. The assessee has produced various evidence with regard to the receipt of the goods by it, i.e. stock register, receipt of weigh-bridge for weighment of goods purchased by the assessee, octroi receipt for the payment of octroi duty etc. After considering the entire material, it is oopined that the assessee did not purchase the goods from the parties mentioned in the sales bill. At the same time, it did purchase the goods from some other suppliers, may be without bill.
Therefore, purchase rate as mentioned in the alleged sales bill cannot be accepted. Any person indulging in the practice of purchasing goods from the grey market and obtaining bogus bills of some other parties, would do so for getting some benefit. But what would be the magnitude of the benefit would depend upon facts of each case.
In the case of VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [1996 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C], ITAT held that such benefit to be 25% and therefore sustained the disallowance for bogus purchase at 25%. In the case of INCOME TAX OFFICER. VERSUS SUNSTEEL. [2004 (6) TMI 236 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B], the ITAT deemed it fit to sustain the disallowance for a lumpsum amount of ₹ 50,000/- - However, in the case of Shri Anubhai Shivlal, the ITAT has considered both the decisions in the case of Vijay Proteins and Sunsteel and thereafter sustained the disallowance at 12.5%.
Thus, it would meet ends of justice, if the disallowance is sustained at 12.5% of the purchase from these two parties. The Assessing Officer is directed to work out the disallowance accordingly - the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1200 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the view has already been expressed by respected Co-ordinate Bench therefore, we have no reason to take any other view except to follow the same. With the result we hereby accept the argument of learned Authorised Representative to the extent that in the present situation the provisions of s. 14A need not to apply while granting exemption to an income earned on sale of investment primarily because of the reason of the withdrawal or deletion of sub-r. 5(b) to First Schedule of s. 44 of IT Act. Once we have taken this view therefore the enhancement as proposed by learned CIT(A) is reversed and the directions in this regard are set aside. Resultantly ground No. 1 is allowed consequent thereupon ground No. 2 automatically goes in favour of the assessee. 9. Accordingly, by following the earlier orders of this Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1199 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Method of accounting - Excess collection of cash – correct date of payment of PF dues – accrual of interest on government securities – claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) - advance income received by way of commission, exchange and discount, including locker rent - Held that:- The questions raised in this Appeal are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.[2010 (4) TMI 217 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
-
2010 (12) TMI 1198 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e the learned first appellate authority which indicate that dividend income of ₹ 20,03,000/- is available in the account of interest and discount. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In our opinion, learned first appellate authority has not remanded any issue for adjudication to the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) in principle agreed that exemption u/s 10(34) is available to the assessee on the dividend income. He felt a little handicap with regard to verification of a fact, whether the company who had given dividend has paid the tax on distributed profits or not. For this limited purpose, he directed the Assessing Officer to verify this claim. In our opinion, learned CIT (A) has not exceeded to his jurisdiction. We do not find any error in the order of the learned first appellate authority. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 30th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1197 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... find that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was considering the case of an assessee who sold agricultural land and invested the same in the purchase of new land and the new land was registered in the name of the assessee and his son’s name as co-owners. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that when the land in question was purchased out of sale proceeds of the agricultural land which was used only for agricultural purposes and merely because the assessee’s son was shown in the sale deed as co-owner, it did not make any difference and the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts of Madras and also Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54 as well as u/s 54EC of the Act. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1196 - ITAT INDORE
Claim of deduction u/s 080 - HELD THAT:- Once the letter for completion of project is given by the assessee to the Local Authority, it is the duty of the Local Authority to verify physically the Projects stated to be completed from its own parameters. This process may take time and, therefore, the date of issue of letter is not so crucial to determine the assessee’s eligibility for claim of deduction as per Explanation (ii) of Section 80IB(10)(a). What is crucial is date mentioned in the letter so issued certifying completion of the Project. Thus, the date of issue of letter is not important, but the date mentioned in the letter certifying completion of project is important. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the observation of the lower authorities to the effect that the date of completion shall be taken the date on which certificate is physically issued by the Local Authorities.
We restore the matter back to the file of AO and assessee is at liberty to procure the required letter/certificate from the Local Authority clearly mentioning therein the date of completion of the project.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1195 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... xpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. It is further stated that officers should, when requested, freely advise assessees the way in which entries should be made in various forms, they should not themselves make any in them on their behalf. Where such advice is given, it should be clearly explained to them that they are responsible for the entries made in any form and that they cannot be allowed to plead that they were made under official instructions. 17. In view of the above discussion, we hold that there was no case with the assessing officer for imposition of concealment penalty for the assessment years under consideration and the learned CIT(A) was justified in canceling them. 18. In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1194 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssue of deductibility of software expenses. In these circumstances as also bearing in mind the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement referred to by the learned Counsel for the assessee only deal with the question regarding classification of software for the purpose of Central-State duty- which is no help to us at present. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing officer for adjudication denovo in accordance with the law and after taking into account the Special bench decision in the case of Amway India Enterprises (supra), which set out the elaborate guidelines in the light of which, the claim of deductibility is to be considered. In this view of the matter and in the manner indicated above, the matter is restored to the file of the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 2010
........
|
