|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 6495 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessment year and therefore, would not affect the respective rights of the parties for the other assessment years. 6. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of Chat Computers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal passed in that case and delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on account of amount received on allotment of preference share u/s 68. Ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed. 7. Ground no.2 relating to the disallowance of assessee’s claim for business loss treating the same speculation loss and ground no.3 involving the issue of charging of interest u/s 234B are not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 /12/2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1678 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... come is concerned, the ITAT found that the assessee had produced the intikhab-Khatauni (document of title) before the AO, which was not considered by the AO. In the letter dated 23.11.2004 the assessee had stated before the AO that he owned agricultural land measuring 32 Bighas and he has shown the income derived from sale of sugarcane. The total yield of sugarcane in the area is about 50-60 per quintals per Bigha and with the sale consideration of sugarcane being ₹ 90-105/- per quintal (in the relevant year), the income of ₹ 1 lac from agriculture could be reasonably accepted as income from agriculture. 7. In our view the findings recorded by the CIT (A) and ITAT are findings of fact. They have considered the entries in the diary, and the extent of agricultural holdings for the agricultural income. These findings of fact and do not raise any substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal for our consideration. 8. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1675 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... unt under reference has been confirmed by us as falling u/s. 2(22)(d) to the extent of the transferee company’s accumulated profits and, as such, as dividend within the contemplation of section 115-O. The same is, therefore, dividend referred to in section 115-O and, accordingly, covered by the provision of section 10(34) of the Act. The assessee’s claim per its CO, to the extent the receipt of ₹ 1674.86 lacs is a dividend u/s. 2(22)(d), is, thus, valid in law. The same is liable to additional income-tax u/s. 115-O in the hands of the company paying the same (dividend), and which though follows directly from what has been held by us, is another matter, with which we are not directly concerned with in the present case. The assessee thus also succeeds in part. We decide accordingly. 6. In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on December, 2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1674 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... there was bona fide belief. In juxtaposition, in this case the penalty notice was issued, the assessee duly filed a detailed reply citing detailed reasons, explanation, case laws including Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra). Ld. CIT has erroneously assumed that it was not considered by assessing officer. In our considered view once the assessee has filed the written reply and attended the proceedings it cannot be held that necessary inquiries were not carried out. 7.3 In view of the facts mentioned above looking from any angle there is no escape from the conclusion that assessee cannot be visited with penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In our view the penalty order dropping penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), merely because it is cryptic order cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It amounts to multiplicity of proceedings on hyper technical issues. In view of the foregoing, we quash the 263 order. 8. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1672 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ates received on various dates prior to the date of survey had remained to be entered in the books of account. It was stated that on account of this item, the physical goods were already received and the bills were also received earlier but remained to be entered, an amount of ₹ 34,72,238/- should be taken as explained. The assessee also provided a copy of C & F agents and the carriages evidencing the receipt of goods and bills prior to the date of survey. In this background, CIT(A) found the claim of assessee as genuine and since an amount of ₹ 34,72,238/- remained to be entered in the books of account, CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to credit of the same. Again this reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) need no interference from our side, whereby he has deleted the addition of ₹ 34,72,238/-. We uphold the same. 11. In the result, all appeals of revenue are dismissed as indicated above. Pronounced in the open Court on the day of 31st December 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1670 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t with the order of the Tribunal. " Considering the binding nature of the judgment, we direct the AO to quantify the disallowance in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the AO should be directed to restrict the disallowance to 2% of the total exempt in come in the line sof the discussed by the Hon’ble High Court in the above referred cases. AO should grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee while quantifying the disallowance and applying the said judgment in the case of M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd (supra). Accordingly, ground no.2 of the Revenue and ground no.1 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1668 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid decision on the basis that KUIDFC was engaged in welfare activities to transform Bangalore to a mega city, whereas the assessee was engaged in trading of agricultural produce. In our view, this distinction sought to be made out by the CIT(A) cannot be accepted. The assessee as well as KUIDFC are engaged in welfare activity wholly owned by State Government. KUIDFC is also a company. The assessee is also engaged in welfare activity and formed for the purpose of helping the agricultural produce and procession of export. Therefore the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of KUIDFC (supra) will clearly apply to the facts of the present case also. In that view of the matter, we hold that the interest income in question cannot be brought to tax as income of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1665 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ted 2.05.2011 was received from the partner of the firm Shri Rakesh Chandra Rastogi. After going through the records and considering the reply I hold that the assessee is in default of repaying the amount in cash of ₹ 17,55,000/- from the above two parties in view of the provision of section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly I imposed a penalty of ₹ 17,55,000/- u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 equivalent to the amount repaid in cash to the above parties.” 7. Considering similar arguments and facts, the CIT(A) came to an identical finding in the facts of the case. Since the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties remained the same, accordingly or reasons given in ITA No.-5622/Del/2012, ITA No-5623/Del/2012 is also dismissed as per the pronouncement made in the open Court in the presence of the parties at the time of hearing. In the result, the departmental appeals are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 6th of December 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1664 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... remits an amount to a non resident out of India, he claims deduction or allowances under the Income tax Act for the said sum as an expenditure. The Supreme Court referred to the amendment made to the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 1st April 2008 and observed that since the provision has been brought into force only from 01/04/2008, it will not apply for the period prior to the same. It is based on the said view that the Tribunal came to a finding that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax with respect to the above transaction. 6. Delhi High Court also in CIT v. EON Technology (P.) Ltd. 2012 343 ITR 366 has taken a similar view. Apparently, the amendments made by Finance Act, 2012 will have no application to the facts of the case as the payment relates to the assessment year 2007-08. No grounds have been raised in the appeal which warrants interference. We do not think that any substantial question of law arises for consideration and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1662 - ITAT COCHIN
Disallowance of “Provision for leave encashment” u/s 43B(f) - Held that:- As decided in THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) , THRISSUR. VERSUS M/S. KERALA FEEDS LTD., [2013 (9) TMI 1212 - ITAT COCHIN] Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case Civil Appeal of the Department is allowed. We further make it clear that the assessee would, during the pendency of this Civil Appeal, pay tax as if Section 43B(f) is on the Statute Book but at the same time it would be entitled to make a claim in its returns.
We set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Exide Industries Ltd COMMR. OF INCOME TAX & ORS Versus M/s EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. - [2009 (5) TMI 894 - SUPREME COURT] - Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1661 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... as followed the order for assessment year 2006-07, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 13. So far as ground Nos. 11 & 12 are concerned, we find the same relates to levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C. Charging of interest under the above provisions are mandatory and consequential. Accordingly the above grounds are dismissed. 14. So far as ground No. 13 is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that a direction may be given to the AO to verify the short credit for taxes deducted at source amounting to ₹ 8,00,582/-. The Ld. DR has no objection for the same. We, therefore, restore this ground to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the records and give necessary credit for TDS as per law. 15. Ground No. l4 relates to initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c), which in our opinion is pre-mature at this stage. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1660 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... ly because the income was determined on estimate basis, by rejecting such books of accounts?” We have gone through the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same as the Tribunal has decided the matter relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT reported in (232 ITR 776)-AP. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.” 7. Respectfully following the same, since the issue is crystallized by the above judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we delete the addition made by the A.O., and confirmed by the CIT(A). The coordinate bench decision relied on by Ld. DR stands disapproved by the later judgement of High Court. Accordingly, this ground is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is considered allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 11th Dec’13
-
2013 (12) TMI 1658 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... lower authorities has pointed out as to what inaccurate particulars were filed by the assessee with regard to the loss on sale of fixed assets. Obviously loss on sale of fixed assets was mentioned by the assessee itself in its books of accounts. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- CIT 348 ITR 306 held that even a reputed firm like Prime Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. having great expertise could make a silly mistake in computation and if such mistake is bonafide and inadvertent cannot lead to a penalty under section 271(1)(c). This is all the more a good reason for us to reach an opinion that this was not a fit case where we can say that assessee had concealed any inaccurate particulars in respect of its income. In our opinion, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. Such penalty stands quashed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1657 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee did not claim any expenditure under these heads. The assessee has capitalized for payments on which it required to be deducted TDS, during the pre-commencement period. Therefore, provision of Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. Alternatively, it has been argued that the TDS has been deducted which has been paid on 30.05.2005 before the due date of filing of return. Therefore, it is allowable expenditure. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Strictly, depreciation cannot be disallowed where TDS on payment of capital item made but not paid in time. In this Section, items of TDS have been identified by the legislature and depreciation is not covered u/s. 40(a)(ia) and also the assessee paid TDS on 30.05.2005 before due date of return filed. Thus, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 14. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 13.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1655 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Section 9 of the Act, the deductee should have rendered managerial , technical or consultancy services. In this case, we find that there is no such finding of the Assessing Officer. The deductee has only telecasted the programmes produced by the assessee. In the case law referred to by the ld. CIT(Appeals) decision In the case of DCIT -vs. - NNM Securities Limited, ITAT held that if the assessee is using any facility of any one the same is not technical services. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kurukshetra Darpan (P) Ltd. -vs.- CIT 217 CTR 326 has held that telecasting on the programme was covered under sect ion 194C of the Act. 9. In the background of above discussion and following the precedent as above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly we uphold the same. 10. In the result , both the appeals filed by Revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1649 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Mahesh Garg did not mention anywhere that he provided accommodation entry to the assessee which is an educational society. In view of the above, we, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that the information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings under Section 147 was vague and uncertain and, therefore, the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable. Respectfully following the same, we quash the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act and consequently, the assessment order passed in pursuance thereto is also quashed. 9. Once the assessment order itself has been quashed, the additions which are disputed by the assessee in further grounds of appeal do not survive and, therefore, no adjudication of the remaining grounds is required. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1645 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ge do not fall within the characteristics of the tax. Following this judgment, we hold that in the present case also, for the purpose of deciding applicability of Board’s Instruction, tax effect should be worked out without including cess and therefore, in the present case, the present appeal of the Revenue is hit by the Board’s Instruction and tax effect, being not excess of ₹ 3 lakhs, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. Now we take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The Cross Objection is only in support of the order of learned CIT (A) and since the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed as not maintainable because of low tax effect, the Cross Objection of the assessee does not survive for this reason also. Accordingly, the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1641 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... paying lump sum charges to the HRTC which can be construed as service charges. It is only the reimbursement of pre determined rates. Same view has been taken by other Benches of the Tribunal in following cases “1. Bangalore Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Office ITAT Bangalore A Bench(2012)149TTJ(Bang)102 2. Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT(Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai A Bench (2012)148TTJ(Mumbai)581 3. Sharma Kajaria & Co. Vs. DCIT ITAT Kolkata A Bench (2012) 145 TTJ(Kol)1 4. The Karnavati Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Ahmedabad D Bench (2012)144TTJ(Ahd)769 5. ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITAT Lucknow A Bench (2012)156 TTJ(Lucknow) 569 Therefore, we are of the opinion that no tax was required to be deducted u/s 194J. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hold that no tax is deductible by the assessee authority. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1633 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... he relief accordingly.” Since the issue raised is fully covered by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the A.Y. 2004-2005, under similar set of facts, we do not find infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue in favour of the assessee based on the said order of the Tribunal under similar facts during the assessment year under consideration. The same is upheld. The grounds involving the issue are thus rejected.” 4. As the issue is identical in this year, we find no reason to take different view. We, therefore, following the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case referred (Supra), confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss all the grounds taken by the Revenue. 5. We, therefore, following the decisions of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 24-12-2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1609 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... (ITA No.390/Bang/2011 dt.8.6.2012) and Vijaya Bank (ITA No.455/Bang/2011 dt.22.4.2012). Following, the aforesaid decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal (supra), we delete this addition of ₹ 73,58,708 made by the Assessing Officer under section 41(1) of the Act as being unsustainable. 9. In the Ground raised at S.No.4, the assessee denies itself liable to be charged interest under sections 234B & 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. In this view of the matter, we uphold the Assessing Officer’s action in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest, if any, chargeable while giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed and the assessee's appeal for the same year is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st Dec., 2013.
........
|
