Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 182 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 and Decision etc.
-
2013 (2) TMI 933
... ... ... ... ..... ee has received compensation of Rs. 3,02,16,828/- for granting the developer the right to develop the property which is clearly taxable as per provisions of Section 2(24) read with Section 2(47) and 2(14) of the Income Tax Act? 2 The Revenue seeks to tax the society in respect of the amount received on transfer of TDR. The Tribunal in the impugned order recorded a finding of fact that the amount which was received on the transfer of TDR was received by members of Respondent Society. The members of the Society had offered the amounts received by them to tax in their individual returns. In fact, copies of orders of the Tribunal in respect of individual members who received amount from the developers and offered to tax was also placed before the Tribunal. 3 As the decision is based on a finding of fact which is not challenged by the Revenue as being perverse, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 922
... ... ... ... ..... he circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed as the profits of the business as reduced by profits allowed as deduction under section 80IA/80IB ? 2. Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (i) is concerned, the same is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 2009 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (i). 3. So far as question (ii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in 2011 332 ITR 42. In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (ii). 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 911
... ... ... ... ..... y by way of appeal is available to the petitioner, Sub-Registrar against the impugned penalty order before the first appellate authority i.e., CIT(A), this Court need not to go into the questions of merits on the imposition of penalty against the Sub-Registrar and he has the liberty to file appeal before the CIT(A), against the penalty order dt. 12th March, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the petitioner. Sub-Registrar/s that if they intend to challenge the said impugned penalty orders before the CIT(A), they may do so by filing appeals within one month from today and if such appeals are so filed within one month from today, the objection of limitation will not come in the way and the concerned appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals expeditiously on merits in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. No costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 909
... ... ... ... ..... dispute having regard to its nature. In these circumstances, we feel that the Secretary, Finance may summon both the parties and discuss the matter with them to find out the possible solution, if any. List on 09.04.2013. The appellant/assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 278 crores in the treasury. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present appeal and subject to the outcome thereof, let that amount be treated as the amount paid to the Income Tax Department on account of tax in the present case.
-
2013 (2) TMI 908
... ... ... ... ..... as been considered as income, the same cannot be considered as deposit for levy of penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. We accordingly direct the deletion of penalty. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we have no reason to interfere. It appears that the receipt for which revenue intends to invoke the provisions of section 269SS or 269T as the case may be for imposing penalty under section 271D or 271E as the case may be were during the assessment proceedings treated as the booking advance and consequently assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee invoking section 68 of the Act. Such amounts were treated as booking advance and therefore, taxed as undisclosed income. We agree with the view of CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal that same would thereafter not bear the in that view of the matter, no question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 900
... ... ... ... ..... e over. In this case, we are conserned with the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii) of the 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehension/desirability. It is always open to the accessing officer to call for details of individual debtors account if the assessing officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flip side to the argument of the department. The assessee has instituted recovery suits in courts against its debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed. In the light of the jughment of Apex Court, there is no merit in this appeal. 5. The appeals are dismissed answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenve.
-
2013 (2) TMI 897
... ... ... ... ..... decision. Such issue, therefore, shall have to be placed back before the Tribunal for consideration on merits.” This issue is also being remanded to the Tribunal to examine on merit and to render its decision. 5. As far as question 3 B is concerned, concerning public issue expenses to the tune of ₹ 9,13,861/-, the Tribunal, in its impugned order, had directed the Assessing Officer to follow the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01. This had been challenged before this Court for the assessment year 2000-01. This Court has not entertained such question. Being the identical question arising in case of very same assessee. With no new grounds having been made, the same does not deserve any further consideration on merits. Tax appeal, resultantly, stands disposed of remanding the question 3(A) back to the Tribunal for rendering its decision after duly considering the question in accordance with law, on availing opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
-
2013 (2) TMI 895
... ... ... ... ..... data was available, Settlement Commission has not brought the figure out of nothing nor based its conclusion on surmise or conjecture. It is also not his whims or fancy getting reflected in the final additional figure of ₹ 47.34 Lacs, causing alleged serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is made out from the material on record, that too for filling the void of remaining period, statement of the partner is made the basis who has spoken of different rates for different categories of construction and also amongst those categories, importance of location in determining the amount of consideration of such shops and flats. Neither in the process of decision making nor otherwise, petitioner is able to make out a case of any breach of provisions nor the decision appears to have led to cause any serious prejudice on account of faulty decision making process, necessitating invocation of powers of judicial review. 17. Petition resultantly is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 894
... ... ... ... ..... il Court where a compromise by and between the parties had been effected. There was no question of any transfer till the said compromise was effected in the Civil Suit No.4801-98. Therefore, it allowed the order of the CIT(A) holding that the profit under question in such circumstances was declared in assessment year 2003-2004 and this interpretation is in consonance with the provisions of law where, in fact, there was no transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) (sic) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the business profit of ₹ 36,52,656/- assessed as undisclosed profit by the Assessing Officer, was rightly directed to be deleted by both the authorities. The question answered by both the authorities is predominantly based on material available and interpreting the same in accordance with law, the question of law is accordingly answered. In view of discussion held herein above, Tax Appeal deserves no further consideration and therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 893
... ... ... ... ..... ut not fallen due or received?. 2 The Counsel for the parties state that the question raised in this Appeal is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the RespondentAssessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v/s. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait, BSC in Income Tax Appeal No.1738 of 2011 rendered on 5th February, 2013. 3 In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 890
... ... ... ... ..... se and in law the Tribunal has erred in holding that interest income payable by the Indian PE of a foreign bank to its HO and branch Offices abroad cannot be taken into account for the purpose of accounting the income of HO liable to be taxed in India? 3) Counsel for the revenue requests that an early date for final hearing of the appeal be fixed as the issues arising in the impugned order affects large number of matters which are in dispute before the authorities. 4) In this view of the matter, by consent, appeal is fixed for hearing on 15/4/2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 886
... ... ... ... ..... r Amit Sachdeva, Advs. ORDER This appeal already stands admitted and the question of law has also been formulated. List in due course.
-
2013 (2) TMI 884
... ... ... ... ..... allowed the claim of the respondentassessee by following its orders in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1986-87, 1988-89,1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1995-96. In the aforesaid years, the commission expenses incurred by the respondents-assessee were allowed as deduction in determining the profits of the respondent-assessee. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the revenue has challenged the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years allowing the claim of the respondent-assessee. Moreover, neither before the Tribunal nor before us, the revenue made any attempt to distinguish the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier years from the facts as appearing in the present assessment year. In view of the above, we find no fault to with the reasoning of the Tribunal and do not entertain the questions (d) & (e). 6. So far a question (b) is concerned, it is a different facet of question (a). The appeal is admitted on question (a) above.
-
2013 (2) TMI 883
... ... ... ... ..... l, the respondent assessee had pointed out that similar dispute has arisen in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 and the Tribunal upheld the stand of the respondent-assessee. It also records the fact that the respondent-assessee's policy of identifying and making provision for the diminution of the value of the obsolete stock was accepted by the department for earlier assessment years and no disallowance was made in the earlier assessment years till the instant assessment year. The revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishable circumstances during the current assessment year from that existing and accepted in the earlier assessment years and also more particularly with regard to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. In the aforesaid circumstances, we see no reason to entertain question (f) as formulated by the taken revenue. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 879
... ... ... ... ..... As in that case, in the present case also, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has been remanding matters to the Transfer Pricing Officer for re-computation on the basis of guidelines given by a Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that a remand might not be warranted However, as in that case, in the present case also, we are of the view that the said issue is for the Tribunal to decide and we would refrain from making any comments thereon. Therefore, we renotify this matter on 19.03.2013 and direct that, in the meanwhile, the respondent shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner in respect of the demand in the present case. Hopefully, the Tribunal would have disposed of the appeal by that date. Neither party shall seek any adjournment before the Tribunal. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (2) TMI 878
... ... ... ... ..... 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 even though there is no such provision in Section 10A and Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3) Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in the present case is covered in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 874
... ... ... ... ..... d Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2012 343 ITR 89 (SC) such issue in the context of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act has been settled. It is held that it would only be the net of the interest excluding the expenditure incurred in earning such interest income which should be excluded for the purpose of under Section 80 HHC of the Act. To our mind, same would apply even when the revenue desirous to exclude certain interest income from the deduction available under Section 80IA of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal committed no error. 3. In the result, tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in law in holding that the delay payment charges of ₹ 8.78 crores receivable from the GEB were not required to be added to the total income of the assessee on account of the developments which took place after the end of the year under consideration.
-
2013 (2) TMI 872
... ... ... ... ..... other sources which have no nexus with the business and profession of the assessee in book profit u/s. 40(b)(v) for working out remuneration allowable to partners? 3) Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (a) is concerned, for the assessment year 2000-01, identical question raised by the revenue in respect of the same respondent assessee was not entertained by an order dated 21/1/2013 of this Court. This was in view of the fact that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.86/2011 rendered on 26/7/2011. Question (a) is therefore, not entertained. 3) The appeal is admitted on question (b).
-
2013 (2) TMI 868
... ... ... ... ..... o the earlier letters dated 11.01.2013, 14.01.2013 and 16.01.2013 shall stand withdrawn. He assures this court that the petitioner can meet him and if remedial measures are available to the petitioner, the petitioner will be informed so that there is necessary action even from the side of the petitioner. It is further stated by him that as certain tenders have been opened it may not be possible for the petitioner to participate in them but there is no such impediment for other tenders which are not opened and the petitioner may participate in them. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of. We appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents as also Col. Ballaney Rajesh.
-
2013 (2) TMI 852
... ... ... ... ..... ssessee in the year under appeal? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of provision for doubtful loans debited to the P & L Account without appreciating that such disallowance called for under the amended provision of Section 36(1)(vii) is covered in rule 5 of the first Schedule read with Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
........
|