|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 4632 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 788 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... f the losses then when we allow the interest component which was part of the losses which is not allowable to the assessee to set off because the said loss return has been filed belatedly by assessee then this will be contrary to the provisions of the IT Act. Therefore we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee as well as the ld. CIT(A). In the result we concur with the view of AO and upheld the same by setting aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the revenue are allowed. 10. The issue raised by the Revenue is not arising out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, in our considered opinion while passing the consequential order u/s 143(3)/254 of the I.T. Act the AO is not empowered to rectify the mistake initially committed on the basis of the assessment order made u/s143(3) of the IT Act dated 17.03.2006. 11. In the result ground no.5 of the revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r 2011 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and prays for leave to withdraw the Petition. In terms of the request made before the Court, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2011 (12) TMI 784 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . No such evidence was brought on record to justify the addition. The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, 131 I.T.R. 597 and CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., 159 I.T.R. 71 has held that addition merely on account of valuation report could not be made. 11. We have heard both the parties. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record brought by the Assessing Officer to suggest that any money over and above what is recorded in sale deed has been paid by the assessee. There is no other evidence or surrounding circumstances to indicate that there was under hand payment of money for purchase of the properties. The addition cannot be made merely on the basis of valuation report. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 16th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 783 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o Rs.7.50 lakhs. Even with respect to some handful of customers, sales might have been made directly, but it cannot be stated that the LGDA was not entitled to commission qua the sales made to such agents. LGDA was the sole selling agent and was responsible for the promotion of sales. In the process, services rendered could not have been bifurcated as rightly done by the Tribunal vis-a-vis a handful of customers as against more than 2000 customers whose requirements the LGDA would be satisfying. In the result, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's order requires no interference. We may notice that the Tribunal relied on number of decisions of this Court and other courts to examine the nature of allowability of the claim made by the assessee. However, even on facts, we find that the Tribunal is justified in accepting the claim of the assessee, we do not find it necessary to make a detailed reference to these judgments. In the result, both the Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 782 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ve no legs to stand as the consequential assessment made has become nonexistent. Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. As a result, the cross objection which has been filed in respect of the appeal filed by the Revenue will also not survive. But, it was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums. We find that this is not a genuine fear of the ld.AR. We may mention that in case of revival of any order, all the connected matters are also liable to be revived. Therefore, this fear of the ld.AR is unfounded. Accordingly, both appeal as well as the cross objection stand dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 781 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... unts by treating them as application of income. Therefore, it is argued that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of depreciation. We find that this issue has not been discussed by the AO in the assessment order. Therefore, we think it fit to restore the matter to his file for considering this submission of the assessee also and thereafter decide it de novo after hearing the assessee. Thus, this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.” 31. Incidentally, it may also be mentioned that the assessee had preferred an application u/s 254 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 14.10.2011 in MA No. 133/Del./2011, in which it was specifically mentioned that the question whether the assessee has earned profits and gains from business has to be decided not with reference to the provision contained in sec. 2(15), but with reference to the provision contained in sec. 2(13) of the Act. 4. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2011 (12) TMI 780 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ssee firm is governed by the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act in the hands of the firm and the same is includible as income in the hands of the partner in view of provisions of section 28 (v ) of the Act. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.” 6. We also find that similar findings have been given by the Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 in the case of assessee in ITA No. 1210/Chd/2010 order dated 29.11.2010. While deciding the appeal for assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal has followed its earlier order passed in assessee’s case for assessment year 2006-07. There is no change in facts and therefore, respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal referred to above passed in assessee’s case, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and hence the same is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 27th day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 779 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s, hence Revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Hon’ ble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars cases (supra). 31) The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be Capital Receipt in the hands of the assesses. 7. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmi High Court in respect of the very same scheme with which we are concerned in the present appeal, we are of the view that the receipt in question is capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the receipt in question is capital receipt not chargeable to tax. In view of the above the question of allowing deduction under section 80 IB of the Act on the Excise Duty refund does not arise for consideration. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd day of Dec. 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 777 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e have noted that the amount in question was received in the year 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2001-02, and that nothing happened during the relevant previous year so as to provoke it’s taxability u/s.28(iv). The year before us is neither the year of receipt nor a year in which any material development took place so as to alter the character of receipt. It is not the case of the revenue that liability has ceased in the relevant previous year, and, for the said reason, the amount became taxable. In any event, taxability u/s.41(1) could not invoked as neither there was a cessation of liability nor the said amount was ever claimed as deduction in computation of income. There is thus no legally sustainable basis for impugned taxability of income. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs.20 lakhs. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 28th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 776 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. vs CIT, 257 ITR 235(M.P) Saipem S.P.A. vs Dy. CIT 276 ITR (AT) 055(ITAT Del) DLF Universal Ltd vs CIT 306 ITR 271 (Del) 5. The above decisions were not available before the Assessing Officer as well. We are unable to ascertain as to whether the facts involved in all these cases are identical or distinguishable. Therefore, we deem it fair and justifiable to remit back the issue involved in these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that he will decide the impugned issue afresh in the light of the above mentioned decisions and other relevant decisions which are put before him by the parties. Accordingly, we allow the appeals for statistical purposes. 6. In view of our above decision, the miscellaneous petitions have become infructuous, hence dismissed. 7. To summarize the result, the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas the miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed being infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 773 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... routine transactions recorded in the books of accounts on day-to-day basis. In most of the cases, there were no opening balances and there were no transactions during the year. As discussed above that merely the notices issued by AO u/s.133(6) of the Act are not responded by the concerned parties. The assessee cannot be penalised by making addition in the hands of the assessee. We find that the sole reason for making addition by the AO was that some of the notices issues u/s.133(6) were not complied with. Contrary to that, the assessee has furnished sufficient material evidence and books of accounts to show that the transactions with parties were the regular transactions recorded in the books of accounts. In absence of contrary material and in light of above detailed discussion, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.1,29,85,264/-. 9. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 771 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... enior partners’ car expenses. 6.1. Apropos other car expenses also, they are claimed to be incurred on staff travel. No instances have been brought on record to suggest that any item of expenditure was incurred on the private visit of the partners or staff, disallowance is thus uncalled for. In view of above, we delete the disallowance out of depreciation on car also. 6.2. Apropos telephone expenses also, we find merit in the argument of the learned counsel that for a professional firm, it cannot be assumed that the partners will indulge in private telephone calls at the cost of their professional work. The assumption drawn by AO cannot be upheld and maintenance of each and every minor detail of telephone user cannot be expected from assessee. In these circumstances, we delete the disallowance on account of telephone expenses also. Ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 23-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 769 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... al evidences. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record and in the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that in order to decide the issue involved, admission of additional evidences filed by the assessee is necessary and hence, we admit the additional evidences. We feel that the matter should go back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in light of the additional evidences now submitted by the assessee and hence, we set aside the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the light of our above decision, the specific grounds raised by the assessee are not required to be adjudicated upon at this stage, and therefore, we do not express any opinion in this regard. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2011 (12) TMI 768 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d by the authorities below and hence, assessee should not be provided any further opportunity. 3. We have considered the rival submissions on this aspect and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that there was dispute going on between the partners of the assessee firm, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity. Hence, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the entire matter back to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision on all issues. 4. Regarding various specific grounds raised by the assessee, we do not find any reason to adjudicate at this stage because we are restoring back the entire matter to the file of the A.O. for a fresh decision. We do not express any opinion on these grounds raised by the assessee be f ore us. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2011 (12) TMI 765 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of deduction u/s 80IB and the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable because Hon’ble Apex Court did not say that revised return cannot be entertained by the AO after the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, we feel that ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (supra) wherein it has been held that filing of audit report was not mandatory condition for claiming deduction and even if during the assessment proceedings the same is furnished the claim of assessee on the basis of such report cannot be denied. Therefore, we feel no need to interfere with the order of ld. CT(A) and the same is hereby upheld.. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 21.12.11.
-
2011 (12) TMI 763 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dhoc basis. She claimed that no specific instances for non-business expenses have been brought on record. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that Assessing Officer has made the disallowances in this regard on estimate basis and in making the disallowances Assessing Officer has not brought on record any specific instances that the vouchers are not maintained or the expenses are not related to the business of the assessee. Assessing Officer has made the disallowances of lumpsum 80% and 75 and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has sustained the same also. In our considered opinion, such disallowances based on estimate basis without bringing on record any cogent reasons, are not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 761 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and impose a levy. 72. In this case, of course, this Court is not really required to decide any jurisdictional fact since, on the face of the reasons disclosed, the Assessing Officer has not even addressed the issue of whether there has been any failure on the part of the petitioner company to disclose truly or fully any material facts necessary for assessment for the relevant year. The Assessing Officer, ex facie, lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, in the absence of any formation of belief that there was failure of the petitioner company to truly and fully disclose material facts necessary for assessment. 73. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned notice is set aside quashed. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. Mr. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, prayed for stay of operation of the judgment and order. The prayer for stay is considered and rejected. Indira Banerjee, J.
-
2011 (12) TMI 758 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ot the case here. The addition has been made by taking 2% of the exempted income. This is not a disallowance out of an expenditure but it is an income which is being assessed as relating to earning an exempted income. Adding this amount to the business income would, in net result, mean granting an assessee an additional expenditure which has not been claimed by the assessee but treating the disallowance out of the income as a deemed expenditure of an assessee which is not permissible. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the action of the learned Assessing Officer in treating the said disallowance as ‘income from other sources’ is on a right footing. Consequently, ground No.8 of the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. 21. In the circumstances, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 23. The order was pronounced in the court on 23/12/2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 757 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ficer can adopt a reasonable basis for effecting the apportionment. While making that determination, the Assessing Officer should provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant or germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case”. 8.8 In view of the above judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the matter is remitted back to the file of the AO to determine whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to the exempted income/income not forming part of the total income, as contemplated u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, ground no.5 raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed, whereas, the appeal preferred by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of December, 2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 755 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Assessee has not been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay high Court in the case of Swani Spice Mills (P) Ltd. (supra. We are of the view that the said decision is of no assistance to the plea of the Assessee. The decision relates to a case of a Co-operative Society where collection of deposit and earning interest thereon was considered to be part of the bye laws of the society. The other decisions of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court. We are therefore of the view that the CIT(A) was right in rejecting the claim of the Assessee as raised in Ground No.1 before the Tribunal and we therefore dismiss Gr.No.1 raised by the Assessee. 6. Gr.No.2 was not pressed and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is dimissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of Dec. 2011.
........
|
