|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 6495 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1605 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Addition to be made under section 40A(3)- payments made on Sundays and Holidays - Held that:- In the present case, there is no denying the fact that persons to whom payments were made in cash are villagers and may not be having bank accounts. It is also a fact that payment has to be made to them immediately to secure the lands in question which may require the payments to be made in cash on Holidays and Sundays, otherwise, they would have sold the lands to some other persons. In these circumstances, if the assessee would have insisted for payment by way of cheque or DD or have deferred it, it might have resulted in a loss of business opportunities as the land owners would not have agreed to sale the lands to the assessee. Therefore, the expression ‘required to be made’ understood in this context and keeping the intention of legislature in mind can be construed to mean that payments required to be made for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In these circumstances, payments made on Sundays and Holidays have to be held to be coming within the ambit of Rule 6DD(j), hence provisions of section 40A(3) will not apply to such payments. Therefore, payments made in cash atleast to the extent made on Sundays and Holidays cannot be disallowed u/s.40A(3) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to verify such payments made on Sundays and Holidays and delete the addition of these amounts.
So far as addition of the rest of the amount sustained by the CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order to interfere with the same. It is not only a fact that assessee has paid the amount of ₹ 2,32,20,500/- to third parties but such payments have also been made through cheques. The assessee has also furnished back account copies, TDS particulars, PAN of the said parties. Therefore, the entire transactions having been made through proper banking channel is transparent. Only because third parties have withdrawn the amount and paid the same in cash to landlords, assessee cannot be brought within the mischief of section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1604 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the interest in valuable properties. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact about the important, if not paramount, role being played by stamp papers in our legal system." 10. The above determination of Gujarat High Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Stamp Vendors Association v. Office of the Accountant General (2006) 200CTR (Ker) 658 decided on 20.06.2005. 11. This Court is clearly of the view that in the present case, the determination of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court gives the correct position of law on the subject and, therefore, it is to be followed by this Court as well. 12. Consequently writ petition succeeds. The communication dated 17.02.2011 is hereby quashed. As far as the refund of the TDS amount is concerned, since the deduction of TDS is wrong, the respective stamp vendors are at liberty to approach Income Tax Department for refund of the said amount as per the procedure established under the Income Tax Act.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1603 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income declared and assessed in the returns filed u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act over and above the income declared earlier in the returns filed u/s 139 - Held that:- The only point raised by the assessee is that the ground canvassed before the CIT(A) to the effect that the quantum of concealed income for the purposes of section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be equated to the ‘additional income’, has not been addressed by the CIT(A). This is primarily for the reason that the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee by setting-aside the penalty levied on a point of law canvassed before him, which we have already discussed in earlier paragraphs, wherein the stand of the CIT(A) has been disapproved. Therefore, under these circumstances it would be in fitness of things that the instant plea of the assessee, which was raised before the CIT(A) but not considered by him, be remanded back for consideration and adjudication as per law. The point raised by the learned Departmental Representative against the plea of the assessee on this aspect, in our view, touches upon the merits of the plea, with which we are not presently concerned with. Therefore, we uphold the plea of the assessee for remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to address the grounds raised by the assessee with regard to the quantification of 15 concealed income liable for penalty of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1602 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and bonafide, then penalty will not be imposable as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Act. 19. In the instant case, there is no finding from the authorities below that it was not a mistake of omission and on the other hand, the mistake of omission was identified by the Assessing Officer and the assessee accepted the same without any dispute. In this situation, we are unable to accept the contention of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) that the assessee made a wrong claim which was detected and disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we hold that the explanation offered by the assessee during penalty proceedings was acceptable which was wrongly rejected by the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and penalty was not imposable on the assessee in this regard and we cancel the penalty orders. Thus, ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee are allowed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1600 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the loan advanced was on account of commercial expediency as well as in the orders of the BIFR, we do not find any ground to disturb the said finding. Rightly, the Revenue had not raised any question of law on this. Even though on the aspect of jurisdiction, the Revenue succeeds, yet, the further question on the merits being a pure question of fact and rightly not raised, we do not find, any useful purpose would be achieved in setting aside the order of the Tribunal and further remanding the matter. In the circumstances, except for holding that the Revenue is justified in its plea in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, we do not think, the order calls for any interference to remand the matter.
Advancing of funds by the assessee into the sister concern was in terms of the BIFR's order. That being the case, no useful purpose would be served by again directing a remand on the merits of the claim of the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1599 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - Transportation charges - non-submission of Form No. 15J within time-limit - Sub-Contract or not - HELD THAT - Mere non submission of Form No. 15J (having received Form No. 151 from his subcontractor for non deduction of TDS under Rule 29D to the AO within prescribed time limit cannot pave way for disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia).
Payments to lorry owners is not a sub-contract, hence, TDS provisions are not applicable. It was contended by the assessee that assessee himself executed the contract of transportation and the lorry owners have simple placed the vehicle at the disposal of the assessee without involving themselves in carrying out any part of the work undertaken by the assessee.
The decisions in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation vs ACIT, 124 ITD 40(Vis) [2009 (1) TMI 337 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] and VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD [2011 (4) TMI 887 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] are followed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1595 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Registration granted u/s 12AA (1) (b) cancelled - Held that:- The observation of the CIT is only a general observation and is not substantiated by any facts. It is pertinent to note that CIT has not pointed out that any part of the income spent other than the objects of the trust. In the absence of any such factual findings recorded by CIT, it cannot be said that the tribunal committed an error in setting aside the order of CIT and directing the CIT to renew the registration under Section 80G and also grant registration under Section 12AA of the I.T Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1594 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Money received attributable to within India activities - P.E. in India - Held that:- One has to read Article 5 of the Agreement in order to understand what a permanent establishment is, in terms whereof "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. In the instant case, according to the revenue, the Project Office of the appellant in Mumbai is the "permanent establishment" of the appellant in India through which it carried on business during the relevant assessment year and 25 per cent of the gross receipt is attributable to the said business. Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the Tribunal has made any effort to bring on record any evidence to justify the same.
That being the situation, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal as well as the assessment order in so far as the same relates to imposition of tax liability on the 25 per cent of the gross receipt upon the appellant in the circumstances mentioned above, and observe that the questions of law formulated by us, while admitting the appeal, have not, in fact, arisen on the facts and circumstances of the case, but the real question was, whether the tax liability could be fastened without establishing that the same is attributable to the tax identity or permanent establishment of the enterprise situate in India and the same, we think, is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1592 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Excise duty is to be excluded for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC. See Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Lakshmi Machine Works [2007 (4) TMI 202 - SUPREME Court]
-
2013 (12) TMI 1591 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance made u/s.43B(b) - unpaid PF/ESI amount which remained unpaid even during the grace period available - Held that:- It was the case with respect to employer's contribution as per section 43B(b) of the Act and it is not in dispute that employer's contribution with respect to PF/ESI amount was as such deposited before the due date of filing of the return under section 139 of the Act. Considering the fact that second proviso to section 43B came to be deleted and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aloma Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] the deletion of second proviso to section 43B of the Act and amendment in the first proviso to section 43B is held to be retrospective in operation, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality in deleting the disallowance made under section 43B(b) - Decided against the revenue.
Ee-compute the interest under section 234B of the Act after allowing credit of MAT.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1590 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
TPA - determination of ALP - comparable selection - Held that:- Tax payer is not stopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment though such mistake is the result of evidence adduced by the taxpayer. It has further held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Further the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the peculiarity of the facts of the present case we are of the view that Vakrangee Software should be excluded while working out the OP/TC%. We therefore restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration after considering the foregoing and thereafter decide the issue as per law and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Thus this ground of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Expenditure incurred by the assessee as community welfare expenses is allowable.
Computation of deduction u/s 10B - brokerage on sea freight and insurance claim non considered to be part of profit for deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- It is seen that the respected Special Bench of the Tribunal in Maral Overseas Ltd. case [2012 (4) TMI 345 - ITAT INDORE] has held that once an income forms part of the business of the undertaking, the same would be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking and will be eligible for deduction. Respectfully following the aforesaid Special Bench decision, we are of the view that the Assessee is eligible for deduction on the brokerage on sea freight and insurance claim which it has credited to its profit and loss account. Thus this ground of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1589 - ITAT INDORE
Claim for deduction u/s 54F - Held that:- Board vide circular no. 672 after referring Circular No. 471 extended the facility of exemption u/s 54 & 54F in respect of allotment of flat/house. Thus, as per the CBDT Circular also, the assessee acquired the rights/title in the flat by way of allotment letter on 22.1.2005. This allotment letter was duly confirmed by the assessee by making various payment as narrated above. Out of total payment of ₹ 33.15 lakhs, the assessee made payment of ₹ 6.23 lakhs in the month of allotment itself i.e. January, 2005. Subsequent payment was also made as per the terms agreed with the builder. Only after receipt of entire amount, the builder has executed agreement with the assessee on 27.2.2009. The assessee has sold the said flat on 05.03.2009. Since the assessee has acquired all the rights in the flat on 22.01.2005, the period of holding is to be computed with respect to the date of allotment i.e. 22.01.2005. Taking the date of sale as 05.03.2009, the holding period of flat with the assessee was more than 36 months, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54/54F, by treating the capital assets so sold as long term capital assets.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1584 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deduction under section 54F - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee is said to have incurred expenditure in the form of modular kitchen, TV, show case, bath room fittings and POP work. In our opinion, if these expenditure have been incurred for the purpose of remodeling of flat in normal course after purchasing the readymade flat, it is allowable expenditure. However, if it is for beautifying the flat by removing the previous one, it cannot be considered for deduction under section 54F. We, therefore, remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine this issue with reference to the agreement entered by the assessee with the builder/developer (construction agreement) thereafter decide whether the developer has provided these things or not and decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1579 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- It is a fact that the relevant assessment year is 2007-08 under consideration is outside the scope of provisions of Rule 8D. The said provisions cannot be treated as applicable to the A.Y.2007-08 under consideration indirectly when the same is precluded by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) Bom). Ppercentage of the exempt income can constitute a reasonable estimate for making disallowance in the years earlier to the assessment year 2008-09
-
2013 (12) TMI 1578 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- To invoke the jurisdiction for “Assessment in case of search or requisition” there are two aspects, the searched person on whom notice u/s 153A shall be served and as a consequence of which assessment u/s 143(3)/153A shall be made. The other aspect is that in the course of search if certain documents are found, which would pertain to a third person, in such a situation, the AO having jurisdiction over the searched person shall record reasons and hand over the material to the AO having jurisdiction over the third person. In that case, the AO having jurisdiction over the person other then the person searched, shall initiate the proceedings by the issue of notice u/s 153C. The instant case pertains to this aspect, i.e. proceedings u/s 153C.
In the case before us, search took place on the new management and admittedly no document as such was found which indicated that there was certain income belonging to the assessee, which had not been disclosed to the department in the impugned assessment years. Since the search was on the new management, the assessee company became the person other then the person searched. In these circumstances, issue of notice u/s 153C and assessment to be framed under this provision is imperative, as the provision is non obstante. In these circumstances, we hold that the additions made u/s 153C are sustainable.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1577 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Inter-corporate deposits cannot be treated as a loan falling within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In view of the decision taken by the coordinate Bench that intercorporate deposits received cannot be considered as a loan or advance so as to visit an assessee with the hazards of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was in our opinion justified in deleting the addition
Disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) after verifying the cash flow statement came to a conclusion that loans raised were not used by the assessee for the purpose of any investment earning dividend income claimed as exempt. Disallowance of interest as stipulated in sub-clause (ii) of clause (2) of Rule 8D can be done only when an assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. Ld. CIT(Appeals) had given a clear finding after verifying the cash-show that the loan amounts were not used for any investment resulting in the dividend income. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals) is not according to facts. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1576 - ITAT PUNE
Income attributable on contract receipts - There is no question of disallowance made under sec. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act in this case.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1575 - ITAT DELHI
Transfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- By our detailed reasoning we have held that the departments stand is correct as unique geographical market conditions of the source country in the present facts of the case have no relevance for bench-marking purposes. We have held the focus has to be on India prices as the market for the product of the assessee is India and any third uncontrolled entity for selling similar product would pay the price for the said product going by India specific prices as such they should form the basis for benchmarking. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue back fact to the TPO to readjudicate the issue afresh by way of a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The TPO shall also consider the benefit of +/- 5%, it available to the assessee on facts of the case. The impugned orders as such are set aside.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1574 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of advances for purchase of capital goods written off - Held that:- There is no material has been placed on record that the supplier of goods have refused to refund the advances given to them. There is no material on record as to what efforts were made by the assessee for recovering the advances. Therefore, under these circumstances, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in treating the same as business loss and allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act. Thus, this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed.
Disallowance in respect of parts imported for SMS project - Held that:- We find that the assessee has not placed anything on record with regard to the contention that the assessee was unable to clear the parts due to inability to pay customs duties and other charges. The ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding that how much duty and other charges were payable by the assessee and how much has been paid by obtaining the parts even if it is assumed that non-clearance of parts by the assessee was resulted into business loss, then also the assessee is required to substantiate its claim by placing relevant material on record. So far the undisputed fact remains that the parts were to be utilized for commissioning of a new project, therefore, are in the nature of capital assets.The ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering this aspect. After considering all aspects of the matter, we restore this issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1573 - ITAT KOLKATA
Puja expense incurred on occasion of Diwali and Mahurat are customary expenses and going by the turnover of the assessee-company and the nature of the business of the assessee, we feel that these are incurred for the harmony of the assessee-company’s employees and these are for the purpose of business. Similar are the reasons for incurring temple expense
Addition on account of cess on green leaf - Hld that:- This issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. V. CIT (2004 (7) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA High Court ), wherein it has been decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that cess on green leaf is a normal business expenditure
TDS liability - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The commission paid to foreign agents, who are not having permanent establishment business place in India and they are providing services outside India and even the payment is directly made outside India in foreign exchange. Assessee's income does not accrue or arise in India and once income does not accrue or arise in India, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS on foreign payments
........
|
