Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 283 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.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1545 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ential order only after disposal of the SLP (Civil Appeal) by the Supreme Court. 3. It is not in dispute that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal stands answered by the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In view of the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009, the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4. We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the SLP arising from the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In other words, till then, the Assessing Officer shall keep the matter pending for passing the consequential orders. However, this order shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from collecting tax if any, due from the assessee, if not already collected. 5. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1538 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ..... , held that the Project Completion Certificate under the said Section is not required with regard to the benefit given under the said section after completion of the project. The benefit of the said section can be given on completion of year-to year basis and this has been clarified in the said circular in the manner as follows “(a) The deduction can be claimed on a year-to-year basis where the assessee is showing profit from partial completion of the project in every year. (b) In case it is late and it is found that the condition of completing the project within the specified time-limit of 4 years as stated in S.80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier years should be withdrawn.” In view of the above clarification and having noted the factual position, the learned Tribunal held that Completion Certificate is not required. Therefore, we do not find any element of law in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1534 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ion 226 (3) of the said Act does not suggest that the account like the Cash Credit or the Overdraft is capable of being attached as the bank does not become a debtor. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order of attachment passed by the authorities is clearly beyond the powers conferred under Section 226 (3) of the said Act and is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 before whom the appeal is pending is directed to take utmost care to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment and preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since the petitioner has shown his eagerness to pay the amount so assessed by the Assessing Authority in instalments, it would be open to the petitioner to pay the same in instalments, which shall be without prejudice and subject to the result of the said appeal. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1524 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ns a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. Therefore, the argument that prior to 1.4.2003 when there was no express provision for recession of the approval granted once, the Assessing Authority was vested with the power to deny the exemption without seeking for recession of the approval granted, is without any substance. 10. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Point No. 2 11. In view of the finding recorded on substantial question No.1, we decline to answer the second substantial question of law and leave it open to be decided in appropriate case. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1517 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... l was filed. This finding of the Tribunal is consistent with law and does not give any rise to substantial question of law. 4. As regards ground (C), the Tribunal has noted that before the Tribunal, the Assessee had filed a copy of the return of the Proprietor of M/s. Peninsula Minerals & Overseas and of M/s. Natasha Minerals. The Return of income indicated that the contractor had carried out the work for the Assessee. The Department had accepted the return and taxes have been paid on the income of the contractor. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that Section 68 was not applicable since the two creditors were not bogus sundry creditors, but were actual contractors to whom payments have been made by the Assessee. This again is a finding of fact which is also borne out from the material on record before the Tribunal. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 5. For these reasons, we decline to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1494 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ..... see and directed the AO to delete the addition made at ₹ 88.39 lacs. The order passed by the CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, maintained the order of CIT(A). Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is before this Court. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and after going through the orders of the AO CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we arc of the view that the AO has committed error in treating the amount waived by the bank to be the amount earned by the assessee. The principal amount of loan being never claimed by the assessee as its expenditure, its waiver will not amount to income of the assessee and as such, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Tribunal affirming the order of CIT(A). 7. No question of law arises in the matter. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1472 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ry is that there is no evidence of any agreement between Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi, and Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai that the petitioners case should be transferred from Mumbai to New Delhi. These proceedings for transfer of the petitioners case was initiated on report instituted by communication dated 30 August 2011 from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central 6) New Delhi seeking to centralization of the petitioners' case at Delhi. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 7 March 2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai has transferred the petitioner's case from Mumbai to New Delhi. Thus, there is an agreement between the Commissioners of Income Tax, New Delhi and Mumbai as required in terms of section 127(2)(a) of the Act was available. Therefore, this objection is not sustainable. In view of all the above reasons, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition. 15. Accordingly, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1464 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ... ..... er of the Appellate Authority, felt that the Appellate Authority has struck down the addition or increase, while the Appellate Authority did not do so. There is a manifest error, therefore, on the face of the order of the Tribunal. We hold and declare that the appellate order made it clear that the Appellate Authority is remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer pertaining to the addition/increase of the total income to the extent mentioned above and, thus, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the Appellate Authority struck down the said addition or increase is an erroneous finding. The order of the Tribunal is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the purpose of determination, whether, in view of the provisions contained in Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Authority had the power of remanding the matter for reassessment of the increase/addition, as was appealed against the order of the Assessing Officer?
- 2013 (10) TMI 1457 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Points not decided by the Tribunal - Held that:- In our view, for entertaining the appeal, it will be required to have the findings of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the remedy for the appellant is to approach the Tribunal by way of appropriate application and request the Tribunal to give the findings on all the points which are raised and argued in the appeal. The appellant will approach the Tribunal within four weeks from today with such an application. If such an application is filed, the Tribunal will decide the same within four thereafter. If the application is not filed within the stipulated time, the appellant will not get the benefit of this order.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1450 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Invoking the provisions of section 179 - Held that:- The statute permits the lifting of the corporate veil section 179 of the Act as one of the modes of the statutes permitting such piercing of the veil provided of course Directors of the Private Company behind the veil are the beneficiaries and who have created such a complex web for their personal interest so as to defraud the Revenue. When the facts are eloquent enough in the instant case, where the petitioners were never concerned with the affairs of the Company until 28.12.2005 and the Company had already become Public Limited Company and by the time they became Directors, they were not even simple shareholders for the entire period till the year 2006, there does not arise any question of applying the ratio of decision of Pravinbhai M. Kheni V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax....... + More
- 2013 (10) TMI 1423 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Set off the loss on account of forfeiture of licence fee against income - Held that:- Since the assessee was allotted the licence by the Excise Department, which was later on transfer to one Shankar Lal Patidar but the said licence was cancelled by the Excise Department and the amount of licence fees deposited by the petitioner was forfeited by the Excise Department, the assessee is entitled to set off on account of such forfeiture.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1418 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10AA - Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the trading activity carried on by the SEZ unit of the respondent – assessee is to be considered as “services” eligible for exemption under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act by relying on the definition of “services” as per SEZ Rules.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1416 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional sale consideration received in respect of property - Undisclosed income - Held that:- The law on the subject is well-settled. The Revenue where it seeks to make an addition as representing undisclosed income of the Assessee, may do so on the basis of reliable material. An addition cannot be made on surmises or on the basis of hypothetical assumption. In the present case, the finding of fact by the first appellate Authority was that there was no supporting evidence available other than the seized e-mail to arrive at a conclusion that the amount of ₹ 6,60,00,000/- was an additional undisclosed income. The Tribunal, in appeal, has accepted the view of the CIT(A), while holding that the additions have been correctly deleted. We do not find that the findings of facts which have been arrived at by the first appellate Authority and which have been confirmed by the Tribunal, suffer from any perversity to warrant interference in appeal under Section 260A
- 2013 (10) TMI 1410 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit - Held that:- The companies from which the share application money had been received by the assessee-company were genuinely existing and the identity of the individual investors were also established and they had confirmed the fact of making investment, the finding that assessee had discharged initial burden and addition under Section 68 could not be sustained
- 2013 (10) TMI 1370 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - Held that:- This is a fit case wherein the explanation offered by the assessee establishes and proves his bona fides. The same should be accepted especially when he had filed a detailed note and had also paid tax and had asked for refund of tax. The question of law is accordingly, answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is directed to deleted.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1367 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Allowability of expenditure - revenue expenses - Held that:- As in the case of Commissioner of Income TaxI vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Limited rendered [2013 (6) TMI 776 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that once the expenditure is held to be in revenue in nature incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, it can be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred. In view of the above direct decision of this Court, question no.1 in respective appeals is required to be held in favour of assessee and against the revenue by holding that the respective Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses was revenue expenditure and the same was required to be allowed in the respective assessment years. Lease rent was deductible as revenue expenditure.
- 2013 (10) TMI 1362 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Miscellaneous income derived from penal interest and pre-closure charges can also be treated as eligible profit for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act when receiving income from providing long term finance being the eligible business. - See Weizmann Homes Ltd. case [2013 (5) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that when computing the Book Profit u/s.115JB of the Act the assessee need not add back lease equalization reserve (reserve for doubtful income) and provisions for contingencies (unascertained liability) - See Weizmann Homes Ltd. case [2013 (5) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ]
- 2013 (10) TMI 1360 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Loan advanced - Held that:- A perusal of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reveals that after considering that a cheque was issued in favour of the assessee, from the account of the proprietorship concern, the assessee deposited the cheque in the account of the newly formed company, which returned this amount to the assessee, held that the amount belonged to the assessee on account of his capital in the proprietorship concern. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly restricted addition of ₹ 34,858/-, i.e., to the extent of accumulated profits. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the revenue and are not inclined to take a view different from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal. The arguments raise disputed questions of fact, which have....... + More
- 2013 (10) TMI 1350 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deduction on account of interest on sticky loans - denial of claim being the interest doubtful of recovery and having been credited to suspense account - system of accounting - Held that:- The assessee was following the mercantile system of accountancy wherein any income accruing even though not received was subject to tax. The assessee had not claimed any amount by way of bad debts under the provisions of the Act and in such a situation, the interest accrued thereon also cannot be said to be not arising to the assessee. Moreover, the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, CIT (A) and the Tribunal have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. - Decided against assessee
- 2013 (10) TMI 1341 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Whether the Tribunal has committed substantial illegality while interpreting instruction No. 5 of 2008 dated 15th May, 2008 without taking into account the loss, notional tax effect in case of loss? - disallowance of bad debt and its interest claimed under Section 36(1)(viia)delted by CIT(A) - Held that:- The assessee is enjoying the benefit of Section 80P of the Act and as such the tax on an income is exempted. Even if the addition is sustained, there will be no tax demand as the tax effect will be NIL. In view of the Instruction No.5 of the CBDT dated 10.7.2014, the present appeal is not maintainable. In the case of CIT v. Manglam Ricinus Ltd. [2008 (5) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in such type of cases, the exercise shall be merely academic exercise - Decided against revenue.