|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 667 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1487 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... than Financial advisory services ” No incriminating document on data in respect of these four companies is brought by Ld DR to our notice to controvert the above finding of the CIT(A). Considering the same, we are of the opinion, the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue do not call for any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the ground of the appeal fo the revenue. 40. Finally, we direct the AO/TPO to consider our finding above and work out the operating margin in relation to the total cost, the PLI the criterion accepted by the assessee and apply the provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act in accordance with the law only in case the final assessee‟s margin is not at arm‟s length. They shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. 41. In the result, both the cross appeals are partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1482 - INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... an asset is treated as application of funds for charitable purposes. In fact the question of application considered in the second segment is entirely different. In fact, there is no question of double benefit. An assessee is getting the benefit of application of funds for charitable purposes from the income computed according to normal accounting practices. Accordingly, it is to be seen that there is no clash between providing depreciation allowance and recognising the application of funds for charitable purposes. 13. In these circumstances, we find that the lower authorities have erred in deciding the issue. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute income of the assessee after providing for depreciation and from the resultant income, treat the money spent in acquisition of asset as application of funds. 14. This ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1480 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... an asset is treated as application of funds for charitable purposes. In fact the question of application considered in the second segment is entirely different. In fact, there is no question of double benefit. An assessee is getting the benefit of application of funds for charitable purposes from the income computed according to normal accounting practices. Accordingly, it is to be seen that there is no clash between providing depreciation allowance and recognising the application of funds for charitable purposes. 13. In these circumstances, we find that the lower authorities have erred in deciding the issue. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute income of the assessee after providing for depreciation and from the resultant income, treat the money spent in acquisition of asset as application of funds. 14. This ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1472 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Justification of transfer order of case u/s 127 - Centralization of case - exercise of discretion of the authority - scope of the reasons for transfer of case - arbitrary and/or perverse and/or malafide - agreement between CIT Mumbai and CIT Delhi - requirement of co-ordinated Investigation - CIT rejected the objections of the assessee - HELD THAT:- There is no reason as to how the transfer of the petitioners' case from Mumbai to Delhi was required for co-ordinated investigation and assessment, yet it does give reasons for co-ordinated investigation i.e. the petitioners are a part of the Sahara Group of the Companies and the petitioners had substantial transactions and investments in other entities of the Sahara Group particularly-Sahara Adventures Sports (Pvt.) Ltd. which is assessed in Delhi with DCIT, Central Circle-6 to whom the petitioners case is transferred.
Another view is that there is no evidence of any agreement between Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi, and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai that the petitioners case should be transferred from Mumbai to New Delhi. These proceedings for transfer of the petitioners case was initiated on report instituted by communication dated 30 August 2011 from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi seeking to centralization of the petitioners' case at Delhi. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 7 March 2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai has transferred the petitioner's case from Mumbai to New Delhi. Thus, there is an agreement between the Commissioners of Income Tax, New Delhi and Mumbai as required in terms of section 127(2)(a) of the Act was available. Therefore, this objection was not sustainable.
The decision of SAHARA HOSPITALITY LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 AND OTHERS [2013 (10) TMI 289 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was followed.
In view of all the above reasons, Court did not find any reason to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1469 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... eedings for assessment year 1998-99 is not ultimately upheld. Therefore, following the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund (supra) issuance of notice u/s. 17 of the W.T. Act in the present case, reopening the assessment for assessment year 1998-99 suffers from a jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, we set-aside the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s. 17 of the W.T. Act dated 30.05.2005. As a consequence the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 17 r.w.s. 16(3) of the W.T. Act is liable to be quashed. We hold so. 19. As the assessment itself has been quashed, the issue raised by the assessee with regard to the merits of the addition as well as the cross-appeal of the Revenue is rendered infructuous. 20. In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above, that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1468 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... order it emerges that no inquiry whatsoever was carried out by the assessing officer. There is no reference to any issuance of summons u/s 131 or notice u/s 133(6). In the absence of any inquiry or any adverse report based thereof, the plethora evidence furnished by the assessee cannot be brushed aside in a summary manner. The case law cited by the ld. DR in the case of Nova Promoters (supra) is quite distinguishable from the facts of the assessee’s case as full fledged further enquiry was conducted in that case. In our considered view, the ratio of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgments in the cases of Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra) Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are fully applicable to facts of assessee’s case. In the absence of any inquiry or cross verification made by the assessing officer, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is upheld. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 31-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1464 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of the Appellate Authority, felt that the Appellate Authority has struck down the addition or increase, while the Appellate Authority did not do so. There is a manifest error, therefore, on the face of the order of the Tribunal. We hold and declare that the appellate order made it clear that the Appellate Authority is remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer pertaining to the addition/increase of the total income to the extent mentioned above and, thus, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Appellate Authority struck down the said addition or increase is an erroneous finding. The order of the Tribunal is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the purpose of determination, whether, in view of the provisions contained in Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Authority had the power of remanding the matter for reassessment of the increase/addition, as was appealed against the order of the Assessing Officer?
-
2013 (10) TMI 1463 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee has not made any new investment during the year under consideration therefore, for ascertaining the fact whether the assessee has utilised the borrowed fund in making the investment a proper inquiry has to be conducted. The A.O has not examined this issue by considering the fact that no investment was made during the year yielding the dividend income. Therefore, as regards the disallowance of interest attributable to the exempt income u/s 14A this issue requires a proper inquiry and verification of the facts. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer to decide the same after considering, verifying and examining of the necessary facts. 13. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed and assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th day of October 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1461 - ITAT CUTTACK
Whether penalty to be imposed in case of delayed filing of TDS Return - Held that:- assessee is a nationalized bank and committed a technical default by not filing e-TDS return in time - sec. 272A(2)(k) has been newly introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and the Branch Manger was not known about these technical formalities - due to unawareness of knowledge, non-availability of parties PAN, pressure of banks accounting works, long absence of Branch Manager due to unhealthy condition return could not be filed on time - penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation as per the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 - [1969 (8) TMI 31] - Thus assessee has reasonable cause for non-filing the e-TDS return in time - also this is a technical breach of law and there is no loss to the revenue - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (10) TMI 1460 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... T Server. He, therefore, disallowed the excess depreciation by treating such computer peripherals as a normal item of plant and machinery. The ld. CIT (A) overturned the assessment order on this point. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record in the light of precedents cited before us. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 118 TTJ (Del) 652 has held that the peripherals such as printers, scanners, and NT Server etc., form an integral part of the computers and are hence eligible for depreciation of 60 as applicable to computers. Other decisions relied on by the ld. AR, including ITO vs. Samiran Majumdar (2006) 98 ITD 119 (Kol), also fortify the same view. The ld. DR could not point out any contrary decision. Respectfully following the precedents, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1459 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is held as eligible for claiming expenditure of ₹ 17,78,472/- out of the total expenditure of ₹ 19,84,915/- considering by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure. Ground Nos. 4,5 and 6 are therefore partly allowed." 24. As can be seen from the nature of expenditure claimed and the finding recorded by the CIT (A), the expenditure were purely in the nature of repair and maintenance of existing assets. Neither any new asset has been brought into existence nor there is any enduring benefit to the assessee. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT (A) was perfectly justified in allowing the expenditure claimed as it is purely revenue in nature. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT (A) in this regard which is accordingly upheld. 25. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed and appeal of the department stands dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1457 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Points not decided by the Tribunal - Held that:- In our view, for entertaining the appeal, it will be required to have the findings of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the remedy for the appellant is to approach the Tribunal by way of appropriate application and request the Tribunal to give the findings on all the points which are raised and argued in the appeal. The appellant will approach the Tribunal within four weeks from today with such an application. If such an application is filed, the Tribunal will decide the same within four thereafter. If the application is not filed within the stipulated time, the appellant will not get the benefit of this order.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1456 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... on clearance sale”. It is pertinent to note that the AO did not consider the claim for deduction of “loss on clearance sale” in the assessment order. 14. Since the AO has not considered the revised return of income and further, since it goes to the root of matter, we are of the view that the entire issues urged before us needs fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on all issues and direct the assessing officer to do the assessment de-nova on the basis of revised return of income filed by the assessee, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have quashed the order of Ld CIT(A) on the preliminary issue and since we have directed the AO to do the assessment de-nova, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate the grounds urged on merits. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 11-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1455 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... oks in order to present a true and fair view of its state of affairs. The parts which have not moved for more than one year and less than two years are written down by 50 and those which have not moved for more than two years are written down fully”. 17.1 After hearing both the sides, we find above ground is identical to ground of appeal No.1 in ITA No.351/PN/2009. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the assessee has been restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with certain directions. Following the same ratio this ground by the assessee is also restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the directions given therein. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.351/PN/2009 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA No.368/PN/2009 and ITA No.302/PN/2010 are dismissed and ITA No.1000/PN/2012 by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open court on 28-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1454 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... year income. 7. Since the order of Assessment Year 2007-08 is already set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, it will be premature to any direction in respect of the setting of the unabsorbed depreciation for Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore, this issue is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 8. In the ground no.5, the assessee has raised the issue of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As we remanded back the issue raised regarding the transfer pricing adjustment for determining the arms length price for international transaction and to decide the entitlement of the assessee claimed u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, this ground is premature. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 9th day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1453 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the sections are to be satisfied which are not satisfied in the case of the assessee. It is not a mistake but the illegality because the mandatory requirement was not fulfilled. 22. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material and decisions relied upon by the parties we are of the view that any party to the appeal can raise a fresh plea subject to the fulfilment of condition that no new facts are to be brought on record for disposing of such new point and an opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT Vs Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co., USA (supra). However, in view of our finding on the merits of the case whereby the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, we do not propose to adjudicate this new plea raised by the assessee being academic. 23. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 31st day of October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1452 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ange contracts which had not matured during the year on the balance-sheet date. The AO had disallowed the loss as contingent in nature as contract had not matured and also held that it was notional. CIT(A) has allowed the claim following some decisions of Tribunal. We find that the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT. Vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited (312 ITR 224) in which it has been held that adjustment on account of foreign exchange fluctuation can be made on each balance-sheet date in respect of any forward foreign exchange contract pending actual payment and any loss arising there from has to be allowed as an item of expenditure u/s 37(1). We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of loss of the assessee. The order of CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld on this issue. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 7-10-2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1450 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Invoking the provisions of section 179 - Held that:- The statute permits the lifting of the corporate veil section 179 of the Act as one of the modes of the statutes permitting such piercing of the veil provided of course Directors of the Private Company behind the veil are the beneficiaries and who have created such a complex web for their personal interest so as to defraud the Revenue. When the facts are eloquent enough in the instant case, where the petitioners were never concerned with the affairs of the Company until 28.12.2005 and the Company had already become Public Limited Company and by the time they became Directors, they were not even simple shareholders for the entire period till the year 2006, there does not arise any question of applying the ratio of decision of Pravinbhai M. Kheni V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax and others [2012 (12) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] for that matter upholding the action of the respondents of invoking the provisions of section 179 of the Act.
In our opinion, the very action of the respondents of invocation of powers under section 179 of the Act qua the petitioners is bad in law and requires quashment, and therefore, impugned notice dated 14.10.2011 and all consequential orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1426 - ITAT PUNE
Denial of deduction claimed u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of project Tulips - Held that:- Legal position it is settled that clause (d) will not apply if project is approved prior to 01-04-2005. In the present case, it is an admitted position that Tulip project was approved and commenced on 19- 03-2003. In view of the above, the objection of Assessing Officer in respect of construction of commercial user could not be sustained. It is also pertinent to mention that Assessing Officer himself has accepted in assessment order that commercial area of 8801 sq. ft. is within permissible limits of PCMC for housing project constructed in the residential zone. Therefore, commercial user constructed Tulip project was within the norms of PCMC for housing project. Accordingly, issue raised in ground No.1 & 2 has rightly been decided in favour of assessee because clause (d) inserted in the provisions of section 80IB(10) restricting commercial area has prospective effect from 01-04- 2005. We uphold the same.
Violation of clause (c) on the basis of report given by Ward Inspector - Held that:- Material as available on record reveals that three flats were separately sold to Mr. Oomer K. George through separate deeds. Three electricity connections were provided for respective flats and even municipal authorities recognizes three flats by assessing them separately for the purpose of municipal taxes. There is apparently nothing on record that assessee has played a role in selling the flats in combined manner even purchaser Mr. Oomer K. George during appeal also confirmed the fact that three flats were joined by him and assessee has not played any role in the same. In view of the above objection on violation of clause (c) and in view of the merger of three flats by one Mr. Oomer K. George was not accepted by CIT(A) , accordingly disallowance of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on this ground was rejected and claim of assessee was allowed. This reason of factual legal finding needs no interference from our side. We upheld the same.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1425 - ITAT MUMBAI
Admission of additional evidence - Held that:- In the assessment proceedings resumed on 10.12.2010, 13.12.2010 and 28.12.2010, the AR has been asked to explain the issues raised in the CIT’s order u/s 263 of the Act. Once again, no specific information has been called for during these dates and thereby the AO proceeded to complete the assessment on 31.12.2010 i.e., within a span of 20 days. This, in our view, resultantly implies that the assessee has not been provided with proper opportunity in the light of rule 46A (1) (d) which provides one of the exceptional circumstances under which the Ld.CIT(A) can admit the additional evidence in the first appellate proceedings. It is also relevant to note that before admitting the additional evidence, the Ld.CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the AO on the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and accordingly considered the submission of the AO dated 27.01.2012 by giving proper opportunity to the AO to examine the said additional evidence.
We are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has not contravened Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules while admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count and the same is upheld.
........
|
