|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 586 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1186 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1(1)/201(1A) is not justified and deleted the same. Hence these appeals by the department. 4. At the time of hearing learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand learned AR submitted that the said amounts have been held to be share application money and the Tribunal has also deleted the deemed dividend by upholding the orders of learned CIT(A). Therefore there is no question of applicability of section 194 of the Act. Above facts have not been disputed by learned Departmental Representative. 5. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the above submissions of learned AR, we hold that there is no infirmity in the orders of learned CIT(A). We uphold his orders for both the assessment years under consideration by rejecting grounds of appeal taken by the department. 6. In the result, both appeals of the department for A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 are dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 6th Day of September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1181 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e is a strong possibility of manipulation and therefore one representative from the promotee juniors shall also be included in the panel. 14 We think that this is a reasonable request. Justice must not only be done but must be also seen to be done. 15 But a word of caution. Our Constitution and democratic policy is welded to the theme of Rule of Law. Institutional Morality compels the government to accept without hesitation adjudicatory decisions. There is no provision for a pick and choose governance. In a fight for seniority and promotion by its employees, the senior levels of Government can only be a silent spectator and not an active participant lest it destroy their fundamentally impartial role. Dedication and Expedition is called for All the OA's being in the same gemre are hereby disposed of with the above directions to be scrupulously observed. No costs. MA Nos.302/2013 and 303/2013 in OA Nos.128/2013 and 129/2013 for production of documents are also disposed of.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1180 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... based on a concurrent finding of fact, no question of law arises. Thus we do not entertain this appeal. 5) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4.1 Even AO for assessment year 2010-11 has assessed the gain arising to the assessee from sale and purchase of shares as short term capital gain and long term capital gain. The short term capital gain assessed by the AO with regard to this activity for assessment year 2010-11 is a sum of ₹ 2,33,19,981/-. Therefore, the facts cannot be said to be different from the year under consideration. Respectfully following the aforementioned order of the Tribunal which has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, we see no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)vide which necessary relief has been given to the assessee. We decline to interfere and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/09/2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1178 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e, therefore, hold that the addition on account of interest on NPA is not justified. We hold that addition in respect of interest on NPA account made by the AO is rightly deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). We accordingly confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the ground taken by the Revenue. 7. So far as the cross objection of the assessee is concerned the issue is that the disallowance made u/s.14A. We find an identical issue has come up for the consideration in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No.1287/PN/2012 order dated 20-09- 2012 and the Tribunal has deleted the addition. 7.1 Following the reasonings given for deleting the said addition in the A.Y. 2008-09, we delete the addition in this year also as facts are identical and allow the ground taken by the assessee in the cross objection. 8. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of September 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1177 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ty of unaccounted transactions. We find that the AO himself admits that the assessee has specifically denied. Law is well settled that burden is on the Revenue to establish the identity if any person is to be charged under the Act. The action of the AO examining the different persons having the same name prima-facie establishes that Assessing Officer himself is not sure that the assessee is the same person whose name was found noted in the seized document. Moreover, nothing is on record to show that Shriram H. Soni has stated about the assessee that whatever the notings found were in respect of the assessee. No corroborative material is found. In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the entire addition as there is no evidence against the assessee. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1174 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... d. DR has opposed the stand taken by ld. AR and has supported the appellate order. 3.2 After hearing both sides, we have found that this issue stands squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Textlool Co. Ltd. Appeal No. 447 of 2003, wherein it has been held that the payment made by the assessee-company directly to LIC towards Group Gratuity Fund is allowable. Accordingly, by respectfully following the above decision this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee. The additions so made in both the years are deleted. 4. In A.Y. 2009-10 two more grounds relating to charging of surcharge and levy of interest u/s 234C have been raised. Since charging of interest and surcharge are mandatory, these grounds cannot be allowed. 5. In the result the appeal in ITA No. 47/Jodh/2013 for A.Y.2008-09 is allowed and the appeal in ITA No. 48/Jodh/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 20th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1173 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... manner the risk adjustment cannot be given. In fact it is a duty of assessee as well as TPO to conduct a proper FAR analysis so that right comparables are selected. Once the comparables are selected and accepted except for working capital adjustment no further risk adjustment is required to be made. In view of this we do not agree with assessee’s contentions so far as risk adjustment is concerned. In view of the above, ground no.1 is partly allowed. 15. As regards depreciation on computer peripherals the case of the assessee is fully covered by the decision in the case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. reported in ITA NO. 1266/2010 wherein it has been held that computer peripherals are eligible for depreciation 60 therefore, ground no.2 is allowed. Ground no.3 with respect to interest u/s 234B is consequential and does not require any adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 27th /09/ 2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... TA No. 688 to 691/Mum/2012. (ii) M/s Wadhwa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. order dated 3.7.2013, ITA No. 695/Mum/2012 7. After carefully considering the rival submissions and the relevant findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that this issue is covered by a series of decisions of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. Moreover, we have also decided identical issue against the Revenue following the aforesaid decisions, as relied upon by the learned Counsel in an appeal filed by the Revenue in Trent Limited, ITA no.1730/Mum./2012, vide order of even date. Consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal, we hold that such payment of premium on account of additional FSI cannot be treated as rent as stipulated under section 194-I and, hence, no TDS was required to be deducted. Consequently, interest under section 201(1) / 201(1A) cannot be levied. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is treated as dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th September 2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1169 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering the provisions of Section 10(10D) and the CBDT Circular and also perusing the decisions i.e. in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Exports, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 178 (Bom) and various others, held that the amount received on Keyman Insurance Policy is exempt by the Section 10(10D) of the Act. There is no contrary decision available till date. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the findings of the learned CIT(A), who has decided the issue following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajan Nanda (supra). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also taken into consideration the CBDT Circular and came to the conclusion that the amount received on account of Keyman Insurance Policy is exempt by the Section10(10D) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. Resultantly, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of Sept.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1168 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... 137 (Mumbai) (SB). Against the aforesaid, Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. It was a common point between the parties that the issue raised stands covered in terms of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (supra) and that such decision continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority. Therefore, having regard to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (supra) it has to be deemed that deferred sales tax liability being the difference between the payment at net present value against the future liability of the assessee arising as a result of the scheme of Maharashtra Government was a ‘Capital Receipt’ and could not be turned as a revenue receipt chargeable to tax. As a result, order the of the CIT(A) is liable to be affirmed. We hold so. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1167 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay application - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned.The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1153 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allow ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal. 7. Keeping in view of our decision rendered above on the preliminary issue raised in ground No. 1 upholding the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act treating the same as bad in law, the issue raised in ground No. 2 Revenue’s appeal challenging the deletion of by the ld. CIT(A) of the addition made by the A.O. by way of disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition has become infructuous although the same as noted by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1996-97 holding that the land development right is a capital asset. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary or expedient to adjudicate upon the same on merit. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s. 10A - whether to be allowed first before setting off unabsorbed loss and depreciation of non-eligible business unit of the assessee ? - Held that:- The deduction under section 10A, in our view, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of section 72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses.
What the Revenue in essence seeks to attain is to telescope the provisions of Chapter VI-A in the context of the deduction which is allowable under section 10A, which would not be permissible unless a specific statutory provision to that effect were to be made. In the absence thereof, such an approach cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal would have to be affirmed since it is plain and evident that the deduction under section 10A has to be given at the stage when the profits and gains of business are computed in the first instance See Black & Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
-
2013 (9) TMI 1148 - SC ORDER
Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- HC order confirmed [2012 (3) TMI 244 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] A.O. has not acted within his jurisdiction in purporting to reopen the assessment. Also A.O. was not entitled, when he disposed of the objections to travel beyond the ambit of the reasons which were disclosed to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1146 - ITAT MUMBAI
Eligible income for allowance of deduction under section 80 IB - Held that:- Scrap generation was part of manufactu - ring activity of the industrial undertaking run by the assessee.Therefore, reversing the order of the FAA,we decide ground in favour of the assessee.
Exclusion of the income from the 80IB deduction on the ground that it was apportionable to the payment of processing charges - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08 Job-work got done under own, supervision of the assessee can be considered to,be a part of the manufacturing process of the assessee and in this vies of matte, dyeing and printing although got done as job-work can ‘qualify as manufacturing process. Thus we decide ground in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of interest u/s.36 (l)(iii) on the ground that the same should be considered as relatable to acquisition of capital assets - Held that:- We find that share capital,reserves and surplus as well as work-in-progress for the AY under consideration had gone up drastically as compared to the figures of the last AY.We also find that there was decrease in loan payment by the assessee.While deciding the issue against the assessee these vital factors were not considered by the AO/FAA.But,it is also a fact that the assessee had not filed required details before the departmental authorities.Therefore,we are of the opinion that matter needs further veri -fication.So,in the interest of justice matter is remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication of the issue in question.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Disallowance under section 14A r.w.Rule 8D - Held that:- Provision of Rule 8D of the Rules are not applicable for the year under consideration.But,it is also a fact that the Hon’ble High Court has in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has held that a reasonable disallowance could be made after considering the facts of the case concerned.In our opinion, in the interest of justice matter should be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1141 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty under s. 271(l)(c) - Held that:- Penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act was not leviable on account of wrong claim made by the assessee in his original return of income, which was corrected in the return of income filed under s. 153A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1140 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital gains (loss) on extinguishment of rights in a defunct company - Exemption u/s 54F - Held that:- There is no finding by the CIT(A) whether the amount of loss claimed by the assessee on account of extinguishment of rights in respect of the shares of a defunct company is factually correct.
Similarly with respect to the exemption u/s 54F on account of the capital gain on sale of shares of Ambience Publicis Advertising Pvt. Ltd. invested in the new asset, the CIT(A) has again allowed the claim of the assessee without examination of the correctness of the claim. There is no quarrel as far as the legal aspect of the claims are concerned but before allowing the claim the factual correctness of claim has to be ascertained. It is clear from the details recorded by the CIT(A) that even only a part of capital gain has been invested in the new asset which has been fully allow without considering the proportion of the net consideration/sale proceed to the investment in the new asset. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the claim without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the correctness of the claims. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer to consider and decide both fresh claims of the assessee as per law. Needless to say the assessee be give an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1139 - ITAT PANAJI
Entitled to deduction U/s. 10B - Held that:- It is not disputed that the Assessee in the present case before us is also engaged in processing the tailings and converting them into iron ore so that it may be exported. Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. Since the exemption u/s 10B was denied to the Assessee merely holding that the Assessee is not engaged in manufacturing, we, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the exemption to the Assessee u/s 10B by holding that the Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1138 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - violation of provisions of section 80IB(10) - Held that:- The charge levied by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the assessee has violated the conditions of constructing the unit (flats) of more than 1,000 sq.ft. is not correct, because insofar as the assessee is concerned, it has constructed all the units less than 1,000 sq.ft. and later on the purchasers have joined the two flats, this cannot be the ground for denying the benefit of the claim under section 80IB(10) to the assessee. At least this cannot be adversely viewed in the penalty proceedings and the assessee’s explanation has not been found to be false or any material has been brought on record, that right from the development stage to the sale of flats, the assessee has constructed flats for more than 1,000 sq.ft. or has sold any unit for more than 1,000 sq.ft. Thus, on this charge, the assessee cannot be held to be guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. Thus, the penalty cannot be levied or confirmed on this score. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and delete the penalty levied - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1137 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from sale of shares - income from short term capital gain OR Income from Business - Held that:- AO accepted the short term capital gain offered by the assessee on sale of shares for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07. We further note that even for the assessment year 2008-09 the AO accepted the claim of the assessee regarding short term capital gain. Thus, it is clear that prior as well as subsequent assessment year to year under consideration, the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee regarding short term capital gain arising from sale of shares. It has not been brought out on record as how the facts are different for the assessment year under consideration so that the rule of consistency should not be followed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
