|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 9210 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 1867 - ITAT MUMBAI
Computation interest payable to it u/s 214, 244 & 244A - HELD THAT:- Since the relevant assessment under consideration is assessment year 1984-85, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for directing the AO to compute interest u/s.214 and 244 and not u/s.244A of the IT Act. Accordingly, we confirm the action of the CIT(A) in this regard.
Grievance of the assessee in the A.Y.1984-85 pertains to applicability of provisions of Section 214(1A) for allowing interest on refunds - AO declined interest u/s.214(1A) on the plea that amendment was brought w.e.f. A.Y 1985-86, therefore, no interest was to be allowed in the A.Y.1984-85. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO and assessee is in further appeal before us - HELD THAT:- Issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd [2005 (12) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that even though sub-section 1A was introduced in Section 214 by Taxation Law (Amendment)Act, 1984 w.e.f.1.4.1985, the same would be applicable to all the pending cases. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 is procedural in nature and, therefore, it will apply to all the pending actions. This being so, sub-section (1A) which was introduced in section 214 will apply to the petitioner’s case, for the assessment year 1982-83.
Respectfully following the above decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we do not find any merit in the order of the lower authorities for declining the claim of interest u/s.214(1A) for the assessment year 1984-85 under consideration.
Rate of interest payable as per the provisions of Section 214/244 - We have considered rival contentions and found that the CIT(A) had held that even though the provisions of section 214/244 were applicable the rate of interest given in 244A has to be considered for grant of interest on refund. Since the provisions of section 214/244 has not been repealed, therefore, the rate of interest as given in the said sections i.e., Section 214/244 in the respective years should only be applied. In view of the above, we direct the AO to allow interest u/s.214/244, as per the rate prevailing in the respective assessment years.
In the assessment year 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88, the assessee has not given full credit for the TDS/DITR while computing net tax payable/refundable and interest thereon. In the interest of justice, we restore this ground back to the file of the AO to verify the same and for deciding the issue afresh as per law. We direct accordingly
-
2016 (12) TMI 1866 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of bad debts written off - Admission of additional supporting documentary evidences - HELD THAT:- As additional evidence as filed by the assessee has substantial bearings on the issue involved and raised by the assessee. We, therefore, in the interest of justice inclined to admit the same. We further find that these evidences are required to be examined and evaluated at the end of the AO. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO for appreciation of evidences as may be filed by the assessee and adjudication of the issue denovo as per facts and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Levy of interest u/s 234C - non considering the computation furnished by the assessee evidencing the fact that interest levied u/s 234C not be charged - HELD THAT:- As assessee has fully paid the advance tax on the basis of the returned income as per the income tax return as per the provisions of the Act. We, therefore, find merit in the submissions of the ld. Sr. Standing Counsel qua non charging of interest u/s 234C of the Act and accordingly restore the matter to the file of AO with a direction to the AO to examine the issue on the basis of facts of the case and decide the issue accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1865 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 54F - claim denied as genuineness of the transactions not proved - onus to prove - whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 54F in view of the fact that the husband of the assessee released the property in favour of the appellant, whether such release is acceptable under the law? - HELD THAT:- The onus lies on the assessee to prove beyond doubt the transaction entered by the assessee and her husband as genuine. The very fact that the transaction is between the wife and husband had raised the eye brows of the AO about the genuineness of the transactions. The transaction is perhaps intended to avoid the tax liability in the hands of the assessee.
The release deed executed by her husband is not registered. The onus lies on the assessee to prove that the transaction was a genuine transaction by furnishing the details of actual date of payment of consideration to her husband towards relinquishing his share of right in the property - even after the relinquishment deed, the assessee along with her husband entered jointly into a lease agreement dated 09.01.2008 with Shell Technology India (P) Ltd. This goes to prove that the release deed is not actually intended to be acted upon - appellant is not entitled to any deduction under section 54F as she has failed to prove beyond doubt that the assessee acquired the new house by the sale proceeds of the original assets sold. Since we held that the assessee had not acquired any asset, the other aspects are considered to be irrelevant and does not require any adjudication. - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1862 - ITAT MUMBAI
Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 153A - whether the proceedings under section 153A, have been validly initiated on the basis of incriminating material unearthed as a result of search revealing undisclosed income ? - HELD THAT:- On a careful perusal of the impugned assessment order, we have not come across any observations by the AO relating to detection of undisclosed income as a result of incriminating material found during the search. In fact, to put it correctly, the AO in the entire assessment order has not referred to a single piece of incriminating material found and seized during the search and seizure operation which could have been remotely connected to the so called undisclosed income assessed by the AO save and except the statement recorded from a director of a newly set–up company. In fact, on a perusal of the said statement also, we do not find in any way it is having any reference to the assessee. In fact, to a specific query from the bench to the learned Departmental Representative, to point out the specific incriminating material on the basis of which the addition has been made, the learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted, in the assessment order there is no reference to any such incriminating material. Thus, prima–facie it is established that there is no incriminating material unearthed as a result of search which could reveal undisclosed income of the assessee.
In the present case, admitted factual position is, there is no incriminating material found at the time of search and seizure operation which could demonstrate that the money received towards share application and allotment of shares is not genuine. In the aforesaid circumstances, the initiation of proceedings under section 153A, in our view, is not permissible since these issues are subject matter of original assessment proceedings, completed before the date of search. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit at the hands of the assessee represents share application money received from Preksha Exports Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- As treated as unexplained cash credit at the hands of the assessee represents share application money received from Preksha Exports Pvt. Ltd. We have noted, Preksha Exports Pvt. Ltd. is an income tax assessee and not only it has reflected the investment in share application money, in its books of account but also in the financial statements submitted along with return of income. The concerned party has also confirmed the investment in the share application money. In fact, the same Assessing Officer has completed assessment in case of Preksha Exports Pvt. Ltd. without making any corresponding addition in case of the said party. That being the case, in our considered opinion, the addition made at the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we delete the same. Ground no.1 is allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1860 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT:- The assessee claims to be engaged in the maintaining of national/international youth centres at suitable centres in India for the benefit of foreign students and youth delegates as well as individuals visiting India and the assessee claims to be engaged, on non-profit basis, in establishing and running schools and regional centres for students and holds seminars and conferences. For the relevant years, the assessee reported receipt of some amounts towards fees for conducting various activities.
Assessing Officer (AO) felt that since the assessees were engaged in providing commercial activity, the proviso to Section 2(15) was attracted. The ITAT ruled - on the basis of this Court’s judgments in India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT [2015 (1) TMI 928 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Institution of Chartered Accounts [2013 (7) TMI 205 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the mere circumstance of collection of such amounts did not result in the assessees losing their essential character of being established for charitable purposes. No substantial question of law
-
2016 (12) TMI 1859 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition made to taxable income of the assessee by treating the interest accrued on FDR's as income from other sources - Whether the' assessee's business was in a pre-operational stage and the interest had been rightly reduced from the capital work in progress.”? - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of revenue as relying on assessee's own case [2015 (6) TMI 1221 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1858 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe - HELD THAT:- Nothing has been recorded by the AO in the ‘Reasons’ about any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the impugned assessment. It has nowhere been mentioned by him that which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee. Thus, vital link between ‘Reasons’ and his findings has not been established by him. This vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment.
The ‘Reasons’ recorded cannot be supplemented by way of further observations in the assessment order or in any other manner. The validity of the reopening can be examined on the basis of ‘Reasons’ alone and not in supplementary material. Thus, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the reopening has been done without complying with the mandatory jurisdictional condition precedent as stipulated in first proviso to section 147. Thus, reopening is invalid on this ground.
Reopening as based upon change of opinion of the AO - deduction u/s 80IA available to the Mithapur power plant - HELD THAT:- Perusal of reasons recorded by the AO reveals that as per belief of the AO, deduction u/s 80IA available to the Mithapur power plant of the assessee was wrongly determined in the original assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) on 10-01-2005 for impugned assessment year i.e. AY 2002-03.
As noted by us on the basis of information provided by both the parties to us that the year before us, i.e. A.Y 2002-03 is the second year of claiming the benefit of deduction u/s 80-IA on the income of new power plant located at Mithapur. The deduction was claimed for the first time in the year AY 2001-02. The assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) for AY 2001-02 vide order dated 29-03-2004 wherein the claim of the assessee was examined in detail and thereafter only the benefit of deduction was allowed after re-computing the same as was allowable to the assessee.
It is clear that requisite material was obtained by the AO which was duly considered and only thereafter, the benefit of deduction was allowed to the assessee as was available in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3). Under these circumstances, it is not legally permissible to reopen the case merely reappraising same material and reviewing the decision already taken by the AO. It is well settled law that reopening based upon change of opinion of the AO is not permissible in the eyes of law. Thus, on this ground as well, the reopening has been rightly held as invalid by Ld. CIT(A).
We would like to make reference to a recent judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs Samcor Glass Ltd [2015 (12) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that where the reopening is done beyond 4 years and original assessment was done u/s 143(3) and yet, the ‘Reasons’ for reopening did not categorically state that there was failure by the assessee to disclose any material particulars on the basis of which there were reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, then, the reopening would be without authority of law.
We believe that concerned Chief Commissioners have already taken requisite steps under guidance from the CBDT to formulate and issue the requisite set of instructions to the AO so as to enable the AOs to reopen the cases only in desired and deserving cases so as to build up the faith of the taxpayers on the working of Income-tax department which will, in turn, increase voluntary compliance by the taxpayers. Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1856 - ITAT BANGALORE
Interest on FDs - as per DR definitely it is an income earned by the assessee but it has not disclosed it in its return - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the above that as per TDS certificates , the assessee has earned an interest income of ₹ 1,01,72,545/-but it has admitted ₹ 87.78 lakh only as interest income in its Return. Thus, this issue requires verification & reconciliation and hence we set aside this issue to the AO . The AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee would decide this matter in accordance with law.
Negative cash balance - CIT(A) after considering normal trading pattern of the assessee prior and subsequent to March, the remand report and the purchase statement obtained from PEC Ltd etc held that if purchases and sales were entered as and when they took place, the negative cash balance would not have arisen - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the above that the CIT (A) has examined this issue and drawn due conclusion. The Revenue has not brought any material to assail such conclusion and hence we confirm the decision of the CIT (A).
Undisclosed turnover - CIT (A) has examined the issue and found that the turnover made by M/s Spectra Investments on behalf of the assessee exceeded the cash turn over of the assessee at ₹ 7.06 crore as against ₹ 8.03 crore adopted by AO. He found the % of GP in this line of business .He has held that what to be taxed in such situation is only the profit element and not the entire turnover as the deduction for the cost of goods has necessarily to be allowed - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the facts stated by the AO in his remand report dt 28.9.2010. Since this issue this issue requires verification & reconciliation we set aside this issue to the AO . The AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee would decide this matter in accordance with law.
Addition on account of exchange fluctuation earned by the assessee - CIT (A) held that the assessee had incurred a net loss on account of exchange difference and deleted the entire addition - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has not properly appreciated the facts stated by the AO in his remand report dt 01.03.2011. Since this issue this issue requires verification & reconciliation we set aside this issue to the AO . The AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee would decide this matter in accordance with law.
Addition on short accounted interest income - CIT(A) called for a remand report and after examining it held that the ledger extract of the account copy of the assessee in the books of PEC Ltd is to be considered to arrive out the correct amount of income earned by the assesseee on the FDs from PEC Ltd and on such basis found that the assessee earned interest income but admitted in its books at ₹ 5,45,45,971/- only and hence confirmed the addition at ₹ 29,45,468/-only. - HELD THAT:- Since the Revenue has not brought any material to assail the conclusion of the CIT (A), we confirm the decision of the CIT(A).
Unaccounted investment in purchase and sale of 85 Kgs of gold u/s 69 - Whether CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition and it is therefore prayed that AO's action may be upheld? - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) examined the materials furnished during remand proceedings and arrived the above conclusion. This being so, the Revenue has not brought any material to assail the above findings and hence we confirm the decision of the CIT (A).
Addition u/s 69A - Cash found in search - HELD THAT:- Before the CIT (A), the assesseee pleaded that it had cash on hand as per its books as on 28.01.2005 at ₹ 2,62,65,903.77/-and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant is in possession of unexplained cash. The CIT (A) called for a remand report and the AO was silent on this issue. He held that the fact remains that the very cash book with which the AO relied upon to conclude the assessments show a cash balance of ₹ 2,62,65,903.77/- as on the date of search and this fact has not been denied or controverted by the AO and hence the CIT (A) deleted the addition. Thus, the Revenue has not brought any material to assail the conclusion of the CIT (A), we confirm the decision of the CIT (A).
-
2016 (12) TMI 1854 - SUPREME COURT
Characterization of income - subvention received by the Assessee - Company from its parent Company in Germany in a situation where the Assessee - Company was making losses - revenue or capital receipt - whether subvention was capital or revenue receipt, was sought to be answered by the High Court by making a reference to two decisions of this Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. [1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited [2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The view expressed by this Court that unless the grant-in-aid received by an Assessee is utilized for acquisition of an asset, the same must be understood to be in the nature of a revenue receipt was held by the High Court to be a principle of law applicable to all situations. The aforesaid view tends to overlook the fact that in both Ponni Sugars (supra) and Sahney Steel (supra) the subsidies received were in the nature of grant-in-aid from public funds and not by way of voluntary contribution by the parent Company as in the present cases.
The above apart, the voluntary payments made by the parent Company to its loss making Indian company can also be understood to be payments made in order to protect the capital investment of the Assessee Company. If that is so, we will have no hesitation to hold that the payments made to the Assessee Company by the parent Company for Assessment Years in question cannot be held to be revenue receipts. We also find such a view in a recent pronouncement in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Handicrafts and Handlooms Export Corporation of India Ltd. [2014 49 Taxmann.com 488 Delhi (Delhi High Court) with which we are in respectful agreement.
We allow the present appeals; set aside the order of the High Court and answer the liability of the Assessee for the Assessment Years in question in the above manner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1852 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- ITAT analysed the facts and based upon the material on record deduced firstly, that similar transactions were not treated as advances but were in respect of third parties and the explanation that they were trade credits were accepted.
The ITAT, therefore, was of the view that there was no loan to the assessee in the circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that the plain text of Section 2(22)(e) does not authorise the treatment of the amounts as a loan to a shareholder since concededly the amounts were not received by the assessee, an individual. See ANKITECH PVT LTD. & OTHERS [2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law arises.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1849 - ITAT CHENNAI
Nature of expenditure - power and fuel charges - assessee bear cost of additional power infrastructure to be established by electricity supplier - AR submitted that when the outgo did not create any asset for the assessee it was a revenue expenditure allowable u/s.37(1) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that there was a agreement between assessee and M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd by which latter leased out a property to the assessee. M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd was to supply electricity to the assessee for the factory in the leased property based on a shared services agreement.
M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd had given notice to the assessee for terminating the shared supply agreement w.e.f. 1st January, 2009 is also not doubted. Electricity was an essential input for carrying on the manufacturing activity of the assessee and there can be no two opinions on this. To ensure supply of uninterrupted electricity, assessee had to agree with M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd to part finance the total cost of additional power infrastructure to be established by M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd would not have supplied electricity after 1st January, 2009 but for assessee agreeing to part finance the cost of the project for establishing additional power infrastructure - additional power infrastructure created was the sole property of M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd and assessee had no ownership over any part of the said asset.
The only benefit assessee derived was supply of uninterrupted electricity, without which it could have not functioned. In this situation, the said expenditure in our opinion can only be treated as revenue expenditure which ensured continued electricity supply. The payment did not result in any enduring benefit but only enabled the assessee to carry on its day to day activities. Just because additional power infrastructure was an asset in the hand of the M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd, we cannot say that amount given by the assessee to M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd was a capital outgo. The expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee and it did not create any asset for the assessee. It only ensured continued supply of electricity without interruption. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the expenditure was rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue outgo. Lower authorities in our opinion fell in error in disallowing the claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1847 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Addition on account of estimation of profit @ 6% of sales - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2015 (6) TMI 1157 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition made on this count. Accordingly, ground are allowed.
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80U - HELD THAT:- Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. As the assessee himself withdrawn the claim before the AO, the CIT (A) was right in rejecting the assessee’s claim and hence, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds raised in this regard.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1846 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s. 2(22)(e) - assessee was the major share holder/director of the company and also had entered into financial transaction with Kadam Exports (P) Ltd - non deduction of TDS - ITAT cancelling the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(A) - HELD THAT:- As decided in SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIO-TECH PVT. LTD.[2016 (1) TMI 84 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis. The transactions in the nature of loans and advances are usually very few in number whereas in the present case, such transactions are in the form of current accommodation adjustment entries. Commissioner therefore, held that the transactions were not in the nature of loans and advances. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the CIT (Appeals) and held that the amounts were not in the nature of Inter Corporate Deposits and were therefore, not to be treated as loans or advances as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
The issue is substantially one of appreciation of facts. When the CIT(Appeals) as well as Tribunal concurrently held that looking to large number of adjustment entries in the accounts between two entities, the amounts were not in the nature of loan or deposit, but merely adjustments, application of section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not arise - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (12) TMI 1845 - ITAT CHENNAI
Changing of status of the assessee while processing return under Section 143(1) - As in the course of processing the returns, the Assessing Officer changed the status of the assessee as AOP and levied tax under Section 164(1) of the Act at maximum marginal rate - HELD THAT:- The assessee admittedly filed their returns of income electronically and the same were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Section 143(1) of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to make prima facie adjustment on the basis of the material available on record. Changing of status is something outside the purview of the prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that changing of status of the assessees cannot be made while processing return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the same are set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to take up the matter for scrutiny as provided under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Appeals of the assessees stand allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1842 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revenue recognition - interest on the mobilization amount claimed by the assessee - hybrid method of accounting adopted over the years, the interest amount had to be treated as income - HELD THAT:- The entire matter is contentious in the sense that the third party - RPCL - which was awarded the contract claimed that it had performed it in accordance with the agreement with the parties. The assessee, however, felt otherwise and terminated the contract. There could be several likely outcomes in these proceedings – many of them possibility impinging upon the rights of the assessee to receive advance amount itself along with interest either in whole or in part. In these circumstances, the ITAT’s conclusions that there was no crystallized right to receive any particular amount or amounts, cannot be faulted.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1840 - ITAT CHENNAI
Status of assessee - period of stay in India - Not Ordinarily Resident in India - adjustments u/s. 143(1) - error in Form-16 - perquisites taxable under the Income-tax Act - stock options income accrued and received outside India - assessee was employed in USA during the period August 2000 to October 2008 - exemption claimed by the assessee towards receipt said to be sale of stock options granted in the U.S.A while he was working in Google Inc. USA.- HELD THAT:- If any incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return, he should correct the same while processing the return u/s.143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee claimed exemption of substantial amount which was in the form of sale of stock option in USA.
The Form No.16 annexed to the return of income issued by the present employee of the assessee shows that the stock option received by the assessee was liable for tax and it was subject to TDS by Google India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore and they have deducted the TDS on the same. This is being so, the AO while processing the return u/s. 143(1) of the Act included the income from sale of stock option as income of the assessee. Now the assessee claimed that it could not have been done by the AO at the stage of prima facie adjustments u/s. 143(1) of the Act. In our opinion, when the information is available on record by way of Form No.16 annexed to the return of income the AO cannot keep quiet without making corrections while processing return u/s.143(1) of the Act. In our opinion, the AO is within his jurisdiction in considering the income from sale of stock options as income of assessee which is evident from the Form No.16 attached with the return of income. Being so, we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authorities.
CIT(A) failed to adjudicate certain issue relating to the status of the assessee and also relating to the taxability of the stock option - These are debatable issue cannot be dealt u/s.143(1) of the Act and what cannot be done directly, the same thing cannot be done indirectly. Further, the reading of the whole order of the CIT(A) gives the impression that the CIT(A) has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the written submissions filed before him, though the assessee was non-cooperative. It is to be mentioned herein that the order of the lower authorities has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by CIT(A) or whether some incidental fact has not been noticed by the CIT(A) in his order. If the Tribunal on a fair reading of the Order of the CIT(A), finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing his conclusions, the decision of the CIT(A) is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions reached at by the CIT(A) are perverse. - Appeal of assessee dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1839 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 43B - disallowance of interest claimed on OD/CC Account u/s 43B(d)/(e) r.w. Explanation 3D - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Tribunal repelled the said plea by interpreting Section 43B and held that overdraft/cash credit accounts are not similar to loan accounts. Tribunal further observed that the interest amount has been actually paid by the assessee through Overdraft/Cash Credit account and, therefore, set aside the disallowance made u/s 43B.
A bare reading of Explanations 3C and 3D to Section 43B provides an answer to the problem by making it clear that where interest amount has not been converted into loan or borrowing (or) loan or advance, as the case may be, there is no question of denying the benefit of deduction. In the case on hand, the interest amount has been actually paid by the assessee through Overdraft/Cash Credit account and the same has not been converted into loan or borrowing (or) loan or advance, as the case may be.
These appeals are dismissed by answering the question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
2016 (12) TMI 1838 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 80P in respect of interest received from the schedule bank - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case , [2016 (5) TMI 1545 - ITAT MUMBAI] as relying on QUEPEM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. [2015 (6) TMI 573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where assessee-cooperative society could not be regarded as “Cooperative Bank‟ on, mere fact that an insignificant proposition of revenue was coming from non-members, and thus, was entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1837 - SUPREME COURT
Deemed registration of an application u/s 12AA - High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision - appellants, has raised an apprehension that in the case of the respondent, since the date of application was of 24.02.2003, at the worst, the same would operate only after six months from the date of the application.
HELD THAT:- We see no basis for such an apprehension since that is the only logical sense in which the Judgment could be understood. Therefore, in order to disabuse any apprehension, we make it clear that the registration of the application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act in the case of the respondent shall take effect from 24.08.2003.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1834 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Rejection of the books of account u/s 145(3) - application of net profit rate of 12% - HELD THAT:- Identical issue have been considered by ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of the assessee, in preceding assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09. The Assessing Officer has recorded several reasons for rejection of the books of account in the assessment years which have not been disputed by ld. counsel for the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not challenge rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act, therefore, findings of authorities below to that extent are confirmed.
Following history of the assessee, it would be reasonable and appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to apply NP rate @ 6% as against 12% adopted by the authorities below.
........
|
