|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 6492 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1741
... ...
... ... ..... assesses as per books Particulars Taxable Exempt Total Unit Unit (Rs.) Amount Amount (Rs.) (Rs.) Gross receipts 100 100 200 Less Expenses 50 50 100 Net Profit 50 50 100 Deduction u/s 80-IC of profit of profit of exempt unit 0 50 50 Taxable Income 50 0 50 b) Computation if allocation of expenses of Rs. 10 from Taxable unit to exempt unit is made Particulars Taxable Exempt Total Unit Unit (Rs.) Amount Amount (Rs.) (Rs.) Gross receipts 100 100 200 Less Expenses 40 60 100 Net Profit 60 40 100 Deduction u/s 80-IC of profit of exempt unit 0 4 0 40 Taxable Income 60 0 60 26. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the deduction under section 80IC of the Act keeping in mind the above. The ground Nos. 6 7 raised by the assessee are thus, partly allowed. 27. The ground No.8 raised by the assessee is not pressed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 28. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1740
... ...
... ... ..... e us. 6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find from the order of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had obtained information from APMC, Latur according to which the value of soyabean as on 31-03- 2009 varies between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,255/-. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has taken the average value of the soyabean at Rs.2,127.50 per quintal and accordingly calculated the value of closing stock of 756 quintals at Rs.16,08,390/- as against Rs.13,61,142/- declared by the assessee and accordingly sustained an amount of Rs.2,47,248/- which in our opinion is a reasoned one. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not point out any mistake in the above. Accordingly, this ground by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open court on 27-12-2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1737
... ...
... ... ..... e and the assessee is entitled to the benefits under the India-Singapore Treaty. We dismiss the first ground of appeal of the Revenue.” Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench (supra), we dismiss ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal. 9. As we have decided that the Royalty does not arise in India having regard to the provisions of the Article 12(7) of the Treaty vide our decision for ground No. 3 hereinabove, we do not find it necessary to decide whether the payment in question was in the nature of Royalty under the respective DTAA. Our finding is in line with the decision of the Tribunal (supra) relied upon by us. We accordingly dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the assessee become otiose and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1736
... ...
... ... ..... furnish any reply to the A.O. and had not clarified the nature of expenses. In first round, the ld. CIT(A) without calling the remand report from the A.O. accepted the submission of appellant. On that basis, the Co-ordinate ‘A’ Bench had set aside the issue, which has not been considered by both the lower authorities. However, the ld. CIT(A) in first round had given finding on nature of expenditure and had treated these expenses as revenue expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus power with A.O. The only technical formality remained to be fulfilled at the time of first round by the ld. CIT(A), was not calling remand report from the A.O. Co-ordinate ‘A’ Bench also had touched this issue in setting aside order and observed that these receipts are revenue nature. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the combined result, the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 20.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1735
... ...
... ... ..... essment year 2004-05. In our considered view, there is no case of imposition of penalty as the reasons shown by the assessee in its explanation for non-compliance to the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act constitute reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we delete the penalty imposed u/s.271D of the Act. For the same reason, we also delete the penalty imposed u/s.271E also for the impugned assessment year. Ground No.2 in I.T.A. No.261/Viz/2013 since does not relate to the subject matter of appeal, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 19. Since on identical facts and issue, the penalty is imposed by the AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, following the view taken in assessment year 2004-05, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271E and 271D of the Act. 20. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/12/2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1733
... ...
... ... ..... on done by the A.O. is not as per law.” Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 5. It is a fact that the AO while giving appeal effect to the order of CIT(A) u/s. 251 of the Act dated 30.05.2006 allowed deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act and that deduction was allowed on the basis of Form No. 10CCAC as well as in view of the direction of CIT(A). The AO has taken recourse to the rectification proceedings as he wanted to compute the turnover and computation of turnover is a highly debatable issue as the assessee in original allowance i.e. giving appeal effect to the order of CIT(A) has given his opinion, which he cannot rectify while acting u/s. 154 of the Act. Once this is a position, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed the rectification proceedings carried out by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act. We confirm the same. Appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th Dec., 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1731
... ...
... ... ..... d the same from the assessee or tried to ascertain whether the same are disclosed in the respective accounts, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 3,52,44,338/- under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. Except the case on behalf of the assessee, which was his case from the very beginning, that on the bills he was to get only 0.25% commission, when the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income at 0.25% on the total turnover by further observing that the assessee will not get any benefit of expenditure claim against the same and when the same is confirmed by the ITAT, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT. Similar case is with respect to the Assessment Year 2006-07. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals and accordingly they deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1728
... ...
... ... ..... ii) of the Act. 19. As mentioned hereinabove that only grounds of appeal in respect of A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 is respect of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act for non deduction of TDS of payment made by the assessee branches operating abroad to the foreign suppliers for services rendered by them to foreign branches of Indian-company. Since issue and the facts are identical to A.Y. 2002-03 (supra), we observe that learned CIT(A) has deleted disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 by following his order for A.Y. 2002-03, and we have upheld the order of learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2002-03, we for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, confirm the orders of learned CIT(A) in respect of A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2007-08 by dismissing grounds of appeal taken by the Department. 20. In the result, all appeals of the Department for A.Y. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th Day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1726
... ...
... ... ..... disallowance is restricted to ₹ 30,000/-. 12. Now assessee is before us. Ld. A.R. submitted that labourers had been employed at the remote site of contract. The labourers are mostly illiterate persons. Hence, it was necessary to prepare the self made cash vouchers. All the expenses had been incurred for business purposes. He prayed to allow full expenses. At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). We have carefully considered the order of the lower authorites and arguments of the assessee. The total labour charges debited by the assessee more than ₹ 59 lacs and it is admitted fact that the cash payments were made to the labourers. The ld. CIT(A) was reasonable to restrict the disallowance at ₹ 30,000/-. Therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 13. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 20/12/2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1725
... ...
... ... ..... trated that there was no full and true disclosure of the relevant facts by the assessee. Factually speaking, the position in the present case stands on a different footing and therefore the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra) does not apply in the present case. Considering the factual position in the present case, the issue in the present case is liable to be decided having regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. (supra) and Prashant Projects Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee. 16. In the result, we hold that the initiation of proceedings by the issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore, the consequential assessment made is hereby cancelled. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1724
... ...
... ... ..... the Assessing Authority has not given proportionate adjustment either way, on the ground that writ petition challenging the notification No. 780 dated 31.03.1995 is still pending in the High Court. 6. Now since the question regarding adjustment of State Development Tax has been decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court in M/s. Harpreet Color Vision (supra), consequential orders are required to be passed by the Assessing Authority. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents, we dispose of the writ petition with directions that the Assessing Authority will pass appropriate orders for adjustment, for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, in accordance with law, after taking into account the decision of the High Court in M/s. Harpreet Color Vision (supra), expeditiously, and if possible within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1722
... ...
... ... ..... ce in the case of CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. He also placed on record, the copy of the aforesaid decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 829/AHD/2007. 29. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the disallowance was made by the A.O. in a summary manner and he has not established the nexus between interest bearing loans with the advancing interest free advances. He has further noted that the Assessee explanation was rejected without any material on record. Before us, the D.R. could not controvert the findings of CIT(A), nor has he brought on record any contrary material in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) on this ground. Thus this ground of revenue is dismissed. 30. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13 -12 - 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1721
... ...
... ... ..... erused the material placed before us. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadhu Forging Ltd. (supra), wherein their Lordships of Jurisdictional High Court held as under - “The receipts from sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-IB.” 6. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction under Section 80IB after taking into account the scrap sales. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 20th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1718
... ...
... ... ..... s of this year 2007-08. A copy of the Tribunal order dated 30.8.2009 has been placed before us for our perusal. 3. We have perused the Tribunal order and have considered the entire facts and evidence available before us. We are in agreement with the ld. CIT(A) that there is no change in the business of the assessee from earlier years and similar type of export is being done in this year too. Therefore, assessee becomes entitled to deduction u/s 10B under identical facts and circumstances. Therefore, by respectfully following the Tribunal order in question, we confirm the impugned finding and dismiss the grounds raised in this respect.” In view thereof, we follow the order of the ‘tribunal’ for previous assessment year and hold that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 8. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 30th of December, 2013, at Chennai
-
2013 (12) TMI 1716
... ...
... ... ..... d 43 of 2011 in the case of Agricultural Market Committee Tanuku and Others dated 30.03.2011. Hence, these grounds are dismissed. 23.3 Ground no.6 is on the issue of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. For the reasons stated in para-8 on first issue discussed above, the claim is restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration. 23.4 Ground no.7 is on allowance of various expenditures paid on the directions of Director, Marketing not allowed. Issue was discussed in paras 9 & 10 above. For the reasons stated above, the matter is restored to AO and ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 23.5 Ground nos.8 & 9 are regarding levy of interest u/s 234A & B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. 23.6 AO is directed to consider the issues accordingly. 23.7 Appeals by assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 24. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 11th Dec’13
-
2013 (12) TMI 1715
... ...
... ... ..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal below followed the well-accepted principle which are required to be followed in considering the effect of section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both authorities. 5. As the Hon'ble High Court laid down the principle that the AO should have verified the transactions in the hands of loan creditor particularly when the loan creditor is assessed to tax and complete details are with the AO. In the present case also the assessee has filed complete details i.e. confirmation of loan creditors, assessment details of loan creditors, PAN details and bank accounts of loan creditors etc., in such circumstances, respectfully following the principle laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 24th Dec., 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1714
... ...
... ... ..... ts in the bank accounts, name and address of the immediate and ultimate beneficiaries and the name and address of the persons from whom cash and cheque were received by assessee. Because, if the assessee wants that assessment be framed on peak of the credits, the assessee has to explain how the transactions are carried out and whether the cash withdrawals are utilized for investments or not. The AO should have verified the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries and in term of this, we set aside this common issue to the file of AO for verification of the facts in entirety because even for assessing the peak credits, these are necessary ingredients. Hence, these two appeals of assessee are set aside to the file of AO for verification of facts and fresh adjudication according to law. Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th Dec., 2013 Sd/- Sd/-
-
2013 (12) TMI 1713
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has not make out the case that the deposits kept with bank for setting up of a factory. In fact it was surplus fund which was kept with the bank on which the assessee earned interest. The ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. is squarely applicable and interest earned by the assessee during construction period on deposits kept with the nationalized bank is assessable as income from other sources as done by the Assessing Officer. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC). Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings of CIT(A) who has rejected the appeal of assessee holding that interest earned on deposit kept with bank was taxable u/s.56 of I.T. Act. The same is upheld. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1712
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s The Nainital Bank Limited, Nainital) today and following the ratio of the judgment rendered in connection therewith, we dismiss this appeal without any interference.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1711
... ...
... ... ..... us M/s The Nainital Bank Limited, Nainital). For the reasons recorded in our judgment rendered today, we refuse to interfere with the judgment under appeal. For the selfsame reason, we also dismiss this appeal without any interference.
........
|
