|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 502 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 1059
... ...
... ... ..... eated such share transactions and income therefrom under the heads Short Term Capital Gains and Long Term Capital Gains under scrutiny proceedings passed under section 143(3). Thus, under these facts and circumstances of the case wherein income arising out of similar pattern of transactions of shares has been held to be income chargeable to tax under the head Capital Gains and not under the head Business Income . We also, consistent with the view taken in the earlier years and subsequent years, hold that income from transactions of sale of shares in case of the assessee is to be taxed under the heads Long Term Capital Gains and Short Term Capital Gains , as declared by the assessee and not as Business Income as held by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) are affirmed. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 10. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 1057
... ...
... ... ..... n should be made 125% instead of 100%. 49. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provisions of law, assessee was entitled to claim of deduction of 125% instead of 100% and, therefore, the same should be allowed. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine this issue and allow the claim in accordance with provisions of law. Accordingly, ground No. 7 i.e. additional ground is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No. 8 (as an additional ground) relates to deduction u/s. 37(1) towards detailed feasibility study expense. This issue has been discussed in detail in assessee s appeal in A.Y. 2001-02 while dealing the similar additional ground. Since facts are similar, therefore, the finding given therein applies mutatis mutandis here also. Thus additional ground is rejected as un-admitted. 51. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1054
... ...
... ... ..... ties, perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding disallowance of interest proportionate to investments generating tax free income. We find that the same issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in assessment year 1999-00 in which the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given a finding that the assessee had own funds to make investments and accordingly held that no disallowance of interest was required. Facts this year are identical. No distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice by the ld. DR. CIT(A) has allowed the claim following the decision in assessment year 1999-00 which has been upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 1999-2000 (supra) we confirm the order of CIT(A). 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1053
... ...
... ... ..... efined in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under Article 12 of the double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany (DTAA)? b) Whether the Tribunal's decision should be vacated in view of the specific Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) as amended by Finance Act, 2012 clarifying the definition of royalty in case of rights in relation to software with retrospective effect from 1st June, 1976?
-
2013 (1) TMI 1048
... ...
... ... ..... and compensation amount received by the assessee ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit of the sale of TDR and cash compensation are chargeable to tax in AY 2003-2004 on substantive basis and not in a year under consideration on approval basis ?” 2. It is not disputed that the respondent has been assessed to tax for the assessment year 2003-2004. In view of the above, advocates on both sides state that the issue arising in all these appeals stands covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Chembur Trading Corporation in Income Tax Appeal No. 3179 of 2009 dated 14th September 2011. Consequently, no occasion to sustain the additions in the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 can arise. 3. Consequently, questions of law as proposed are not being entertained. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1047
... ...
... ... ..... ing his mind on it. If the AO did not make any enquiry on any of the pertinent issue, it will result in lack of application of mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd (supra) that the assessment order passed without application of mind will be rendered erroneous. In the instant case, the AO, apparently, did not discuss about the issue pointed out by the Ld. CIT. Further, the issue pointed out by Ld. CIT would have implication on the tax computation, in which case the impugned assessment orders passed by the assessing officer are also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the revision order passed by Ld. CIT. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.303/Coch/11 is treated as allowed and the other appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 22-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1046
... ...
... ... ..... a, Adv., Ms. Pooam Ahuja, Adv., Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,Adv. ORDER Heard Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. Special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1045
... ...
... ... ..... Ld. CIT(A) for providing opportunity of hearing to assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record of the case At page 2 of his order, Ld. CIT(A) has pointed out that on various dates of hearing either assessee or Shri Rakesh Sharma, CA filed adjournment application. A notice was sent on 13.07.2010 fixing the date of hearing on 30.07.2010. However, none appeared. In the affidavit of Shri Ashok Sharma and Shri Rakesh Kumar, it is averred that the adjournment request was not accepted. Before that as it may, we consider it in the interest of justice that in order to impart substantial justice to assessee, the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for providing one more opportunity to the assessee. We direct accordingly. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1044
... ...
... ... ..... ate the genuineness of the payment. Therefore, according to ld.DR on this basis the entire disallowance should have been confirmed by ld.CIT(A). We are not in agreement with this argument of the Revenue Department. We have discussed in detail the facts and circumstances of the case. If on one hand, the Revenue Department has not doubted the deduction of TDS at source and the tax collected under the ‘TDS head’ was acceptable to the Revenue Department, then there was no reason for disbelieving the genuineness of the payment on which admittedly the TDS was deducted by the assessee. As far as the applicability of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the same has also been duly considered by us in the light of the precedents cited supra. We therefore hold that the ground raised by the Revenue has no legal as well as factual force, therefore dismissed. 11. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1041
... ...
... ... ..... ther, in a decision of CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 2012 21 Taxman.com 159(Guj.), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had held that once the assessee has established that the money was taken by way of account payee cheques and the lenders are subject to income-tax, whose PAN have been disclosed and that their confirmations were produced, then the initial burden u/s.68 was discharged. The Hon’ble Court has opined that it was the duty of the AO to ascertain from the AO of those lenders, whether in their respective returns they have shown the amount of loan. The AO can decide to examine the lenders. If the AO is satisfied with the explanation, then there should not be any question to disbelieve the genuineness of the loan transaction and the AO had no authority to dispute the correctness of the loan transaction. Resultantly, we hereby reverse the findings of the authorities below and direct to delete the addition. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1038
... ...
... ... ..... n exception for deduction allowable u/s 28 to 43B of the Act and such an exception is not applicable to the computation of taxable income of an insurance company computed under a special provision u/s 44 of the Act? (c) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT justified while confirming the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the interest u/s 234D of the Act for Rs.2,90,568/.” 2 To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.1138 of 2010.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1037
... ...
... ... ..... 00% EOU nor received their sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and is accordingly reversed. Resultantly, the order of the Assessing Officer in this behalf is restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed.´ 13. The aforesaid judgment squarely covers the issue against the assessee. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the Department for assessment 2003-04 is allowed while Ground No.1 taken by the assessee in its appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. 14. Remaining grounds of appeal i.e. ground Nos.2 to 5 in the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 were neither pressed nor argued at the time of hearing. They are therefore dismissed for want of any argument to rebut the findings recorded by the CIT(A) for deciding the issues against the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1033
... ...
... ... ..... ncome Tax Act, 1961?” 2 The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this court in the matter of ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210. Further, the revenue has not been able to show any distinguishing features in this case from that of ACE Builders (Supra). In the above circumstances, we find no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1031
... ...
... ... ..... 02-07 passed in the case of Rajpath Club Ltd. in ITA No.2830/Ahd/2006 relating to A.Y. 03-04 allowed the appeal of the appellant for deleting such additions. It is, therefore, respectfully following such decision, the addition so made is directed to be deleted. The appellant gets a relief of ₹ 52,95,900/-.” 3. Since ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. The C.O. has been filed in support of ld. CIT(A)’s order which has become infructuous in view of our decision in Revenue’s appeal. Accordingly, the C.O. of the assessee is also dismissed. 6. In the combined result, Revenue’s appeal and C.O. of the assessee, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 11.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1030
... ...
... ... ..... on, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract executed by the assessee itself. In the event, the assessee itself carried on the development of infrastructure facilities/ contract along with design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract during the warranty period, then such contract to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility executed by the assessee and thereby eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. We also make it clear that if the assessee has not carried on the activities as an independent developer who designed, executed and operated infrastructural facilities, in that event the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the issue in accordance with the above direction. 8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1029
... ...
... ... ..... ng out of actual activities. The scope of enquiry with respect to the activities is limited as to whether the objects are genuinely charitable or not as has also been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Foundation of Ophthalmic and Optometry Research Education Centre (2012) 79 DTR 178 (Del.). We, therefore, set aside the orders of Ld. CIT, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in this regard and remit the matter back so that the necessary enquiry into the objects of the Trust and genuineness of the activities as are stated therein is examined afresh in the light of aforesaid judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and issue of registration under section 12AA as well as approval under section 80G are adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes as announced in the open court immediately after conclusion of the hearing on18.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1025
Eligibility to claim depreciation as an application of income for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11 & 12 - Held that:- Hon’ble P&H High Court in the decisions of Market Committee, Pipli(2010 (7) TMI 374 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ) and of M/s.Tiny Tots Education Society (2010 (7) TMI 377 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ) had held clearly in favour of the assessee that depreciation was allowable as utilization for the purpose of computing exempt income under sections 11 & 12 of the Act. Thus Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the A.O. to consider the claim of depreciation as a part of utilization of the assessee. - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1022
... ...
... ... ..... notice u/s 156, and orders u/s 200A /201(1) /201(1A) after getting instructions from higher authorities. The appellant can file correction statement any number of times is this process in NSDL site. When his all alternatives are exhausted, he should give his calculation of 201 (1) tax deducted from payments to deductee and interest u/s201(1A) to Assessing Officer (TDS) and pay the final tax and interest accordingly. Then he can recover the tax from deductee as per law. Finally, the interest u/s 201 (1A) is a burden on appellant which is compensatory in nature, if proper TDS is not deducted and paid to Government account.” 6. Since no contrary material has been placed on record, therefore while following the said order, we conclude to adopt the same finding, while accepting the appeals of the Revenue for statistical purposes. 7. As a result, all the three appeals filed by the department are accepted for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 31.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1021
... ...
... ... ..... fulfil any of the two conditions i.e. either the assessee has specified the amount of remuneration payable to each working partner or laid down the manner of quantifying such remuneration. It is also not under dispute that the assessee has not claimed the remuneration more than as allowed income tax under section 40(b(v) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. have mis-interpreted the Circular No.739 dated 25.03.1996 referred to hereinabove and are not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee, since the assessee has laid down the manner of quantifying such remuneration amounting to ₹ 2,04,000/- as per clause 6 of the partnership deed available at PB 6 to 11. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the addition so made. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.261(Asr)/2012 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1018
... ...
... ... ..... the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the transportation fee receivable by the assessee from M/s. Menio Worldwide Forwarding (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not taxable in India as fees for technical services under section 9(1) (vii)?”.
........
|
