Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 170 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1556 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... r Sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Act, subject to its gross total income ? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in taking the view that the Appellant was not entitled to the deduction of the Doctor's Sponsorship Expenses in view of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act ? 2. In so far as first three questions are concerned, learned counsel on both the sides state that the aforesaid questions of law have already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2011 9 taxmann.com 63/197 Taxman 84/332 ITR 42 (Bom.) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. In so far as fourth question is concerned, learned counsel for the Appellant states that he is not pressing the same in view of the less tax effect. 4. The Appeal is disposed off accordingly with a direction to the Tribunal to re-compute the deduction in the light of aforesaid decision of this Court. No order as to costs.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1535 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ue that the assessee had actually earned such huge income, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the addition of ₹ 21,25,000/-. This ground of appeal therefore, does not give rise to any question of law. 7. As regards the second question, the Assessing Officer had made the addition observing that it was reasonable to estimate the initial capital employed for the business out of which the above mentioned net profit of ₹ 21,25,000/- was earned, at ₹ 15 lakhs. Since this addition is merely based on the addition of ₹ 21,25,000/-, the deletion of the said addition is merely consequential to the deletion of addition of ₹ 21,25,000/- and as such the said ground of appeal also does not give rise to any question of law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, as no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal as proposed by the revenue and as the appeal does not merit acceptance, it is hereby dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1533 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ht to be raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court against the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.827 of 2010 decided on 5-12-2008. 3. For the reasons stated in the said order, the present appeal is also dismissed. No costs.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1524 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... o any assessment or other proceedings. In other words, penalty levied under Section 271D was only for violation of Section 269SS i.e. for receiving cash payments in excess of the limit provided therein which is a violation of the said provision. Therefore, the provision on limitation for penalty applicable is Section 275(1)(c) under which the maximum period for completion of penalty proceedings is six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated. In this case admittedly the order was passed beyond the period provided under Section 275(1)(c). Consequently we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1520 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... to consider whether there is concealment within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) in respect of each and every component of the assessed income. Since we are dissatisfied with the order issued by the Tribunal, we have to necessarily conclude the Tribunal did not exercise the jurisdiction fairly or properly. We, therefore, allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the appeal back to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh, particularly with specific reference to the facts and the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) after giving opportunity to both sides. The Tribunal is directed to repost and decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment. Even though we have restored the appeal by which the CIT (Appeal)'s order revives, we direct the Revenue not to proceed with recovery until disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal and thereafter recovery should be based on orders of the Tribunal.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1495 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of interest Rs.,6,92,79,428/relating to the funds lent as interest free loans to sister concerns, as not tenable ?" 2. As regards the third question is concerned, the Tribunal in para18 and 19 of its judgment has given cogent reasons as to why the disallowance of interest cannot be sustained. No fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the third question cannot be said to be substantial question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. 3. The Appeal is admit on first two questions.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1478 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... l for the Revenue states that he is unable to point out any fault with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1472 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... an ‘assessee in default’. He is not liable to pay tax under s. 201(1) of the Act. However, that does not absolve his liability to pay interest on TDS amount which he has not deducted. Therefore in order to foist the liability of payment of tax under s. 201(1A) it is not necessary that on the date when the demand is made, the assessee should be an ‘assessee in default’. As held by the apex Court, both these sections are independent and mutually exclusive. They could be operated independent of each other. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that on payment of tax due by the payee, the liability of the payer under s. 201(1) ceases, he ceases to be an ‘assessee in default’. But he has to pay interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act. Therefore the reasoning and finding recorded by the appellate authority is legal and valid and does not suffer from infirmity, which calls for interference. No merit. Appeal is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1470 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... iginal assessment order dt. 24th March, 2005 was passed, the AO had specifically raised and examined the issue whether the petitioner had PE in India. The contention of the petitioner that they did not have PE in India was accepted. The present case is not one where there was no consideration or examination of the issue at the time of the original assessment proceedings. This is not a case in which there was no application of mind by the AO to the issue in question. Proceedings on record, the questionnaire raised and the answers given at the time of original assessment proceedings show conscious application of mind on the facts and material available before the AO. The present case is one of change of opinion. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the notice dt. 26th March, 2007, Annex. P-5 and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom including the order dt. 28th Sept., 2007. No costs.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1428 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... has specifically weighed with it, is that in the past similar commission was paid to the working Directors and it was never disallowed. Mr.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that such a deduction is allowed under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act for the past 30 years. In view of this, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1420 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... law has been amended to that effect by substituting Explanation (1) to Section 234B by Finance Act, 2006. Since the law has been amended with a view to remove the hardship caused to the assessees, the Tribunal held that the amendment to be clarificatory and would apply retrospectively. 2. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1415 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... d expenditure has been allowed. In these circumstances, apart from the fact that in the year 1995-96, the issue was gone into by the Assessing Officer by applying his mind, we are of the opinion that this course of action cannot be adopted for few assessment years, whereas assessment in respect of five assessment years has already become final. If this is allowed, it will lead to anomalous and absurd situation, inasmuch as, the same expenditure which was incurred in the year 1995-96 has been given one treatment, namely, the Department has allowed it to be spread over and gave the benefit of deduction at the rate of 10 for five years and in respect of some expenditure incurred much earlier, for the remaining year, the department seeks to apply the provisions of Section 35 D of the Act. This is clearly impermissible. On this ground alone, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal cannot and should not be interfered. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1395 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... n (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or in part, for application to such purposes in India, such income so accumulated or set apart shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, provided the following conditions are complied with, namely (a) such person specifies, by notice in writing given to the assessing officer in the prescribed manner, the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart, which shall in no case exceed ten years; (b) xxx xxx xxx” 4. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to show any error in the view taken by the CIT(A) as affirmed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... the assertion of the assessee in the statement of objections claiming exemption because of the amended law, the CIT proceeded to pass an order refusing registration. Therefore such a finding recorded by the CIT is without any substance. The Tribunal which on facts took note of the aforesaid income and expenditure account and the relevant Schedules, came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards religious activities for two years is less than 5 per cent. The balance sheet or income and expenditure account of the Schedules is not in dispute. It is under those circumstances the appellate authority has applied its mind, looked into aforesaid undisputed records and has recorded a finding of fact. We do not see any justification to set aside such a well considered order and to remand the matter back to the CIT for fresh consideration for de novo enquiry. Under these circumstances we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1376 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... computer accessories and peripherals?? This issue stands decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment of this Court in ITA 1266/2010, dated 31st August, 2010 categorically holding that the depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals would be admissible at the rate of 60 . This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1339 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... f the view that if the petitioner is intending to pursue for registration under Sec.12A with respect to the previous periods, it is left open for him to approach the third respondent by submitting appropriate applications. The petitioner will be also at liberty to challenge the dismissal of exemption under Sec.10(23A) in appropriate proceedings. I am of the view that reserving such remedies to the petitioner, this writ petition can be disposed of. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the 3rd respondent to seek appropriate remedy for applying for registration under Sec.12A with respect to the periods prior to the assessment year 2010-11. It is also left open to the petitioner to challenge the dismissal of applications for exemption filed under Sec.10(23A). Needless to say that the authority concerned will consider applications if any filed in this regard and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law at the earliest possible.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1334 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ond that. In this case, delay filling is due to the interim order passed by this Court. The Circular makes it very clear that the Assessing authorities should consider condonation of delay and if it is beyond six years, it is for the Board to consider, which has got the power. In that view of the matter, for the belated returns, the application filed for refund of the amount deducted at source for the relevant period beyond six years cannot be considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax and it is only before six years, petitioner has to approach the board and get the delay condoned by filling an application. In so far as the claims which falls below six years, the petitioner has to approach the Commissioner and as such, the subject matter shall be considered by the respondent-Commissioner of Income Tax for condonation of delay on the refund application filed on the ground that the petitioner has suffered loss. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... that addition made in this respect is liable to be deleted?.? In view of the aforesaid finding, it cannot be said that it is an unascertained liability which had to be added back to the net profits under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since we concur with the view taken by the ITAT this question has to be answered in favour of the assessee. In so far as second question is concerned; the learned counsel for the parties state that the same has to be answered in favour of the assessee as it is covered by the decisions both of this court as well as the Supreme Court. These decisions are CIT vs S.K.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 423 and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mandideep Eng. And Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 1 (SC). It is ordered accordingly. Similarly, question no. 3 is also answered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of this court in CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 46 (Del). The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1204 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Addition - Rate of G.P - No proper exercise is done by any of the Authorities below, the matter should have been remitted back to the Assessing Officer to take into consideration of those aspects and fix the GP rate - However, having regard to the fact that it is an old matter and all the relevant data are available with us which is taken note of above and this may provide a suitable yardstick for fixing the GP rate, we are doing this exercise ourselves - The average GP rate for the last five years is 3.25 per cent and for the subsequent year it is 4.59 per cent to 5.39 per cent. The GP rate of post survey period is 8-9 per cent but that period is less than three months - Keeping in mind these GP rates, we are of the opinion that the GP rate of 5 per cent would meet the justice - These appeals is disposed of.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1203 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition - Estimation of work in progress - when there is no evidence on record to indicate that any work was actually carried out for the remaining period of the relevant previous year after the period in respect of which the last bill had been raised, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is based purely on assumption that some work must have been carried out during the said period. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in upholding the deletion of the addition. Besides, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based upon findings of fact recorded by it after appreciating the evidence on record. In the circumstances, in the absence of any infirmity being pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the impugned order being based solely on findings of fact does not give rise to any question of law so as to call for intervention by this Court.