Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 117 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.
- 2014 (6) TMI 1045 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessment passed on revised return - revised return was filed beyond time - As per order of assessment framed by the Assessing Authority on the basis of such invalid revised return is a nullity and the Tribunal also held that even if the order of assessment is held to be passed on the original return, it was barred by limitation as it is hit by Section 153 - HELD THAT:- Assessment order was passed not on the basis of the revised return but on the basis of the original return and therefore the amount claimed as exemption was also liable to be taxed. Tribunal committed a serious error in holding that the assessment order is passed on the basis of the invalid return filed beyond time. Therefore, it is a clear case of misreading. The order passed by the tribunal is ex-facie illegal and therefore the said order requires to be set aside and ac....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1042 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking stay of recovery proceedings - garnishee proceedings initiated under s. 226(3) - recovery, which had been lying dormant from June, 2013 was revived just prior to the close of the financial year and recovery effected of the entire amounts demanded under the assessment order - intention of the 3rd respondent was to attach the amounts remaining in the account maintained by the petitioner with the additional 4th respondent-bank; without notice to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Act of withdrawal of the amount after having validly attached the amounts, without any real presumable cause for suspecting delay or impediment in such recovery, was a clear abuse, especially since there was no notice to the assessee, which is the mandate of due process of law. The Department acted without deliberation or due cause and the unavoidable consequence is....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1039 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowances u/ s 80IB - Tribunal upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union rendered [2008 (8) TMI 983 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] for AY 200506 wherein on identical facts it was held that even if no separate books were maintained or separate balance sheet were filed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act cannot be denied. It is reported that decision of the Tribunal in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (supra) has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court [2012 (1) TMI 310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . In view of the above, when the decision of the learned Tribunal in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (supra) upon which, the l....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowance 40(a)(ia) - expenses paid by the assessee company to its associate company on cost sharing basis - HELD THAT:- If these expenses have been incurred in the business of the associate/subsidiary and these are payments made to the regular employees employed by the subsidiary/associate and towards their salary, then, the reimbursement of such expenses by the present assessee would not require it to make any deduction. Tax would not be required to be deducted at source. In such circumstances and going by the factual position which is undisputed, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not required to answer any larger question or decide a wider controversy. Even we are not required to go into the same considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the nature of the arrangement. The payment is thus, not for any service but as....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1029 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MAT - Computation of book profit - computing deemed income u/s. 115JA - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the auditors have not certified that the books of account were properly maintained in accordance with the provision of the Companies Act. The auditors in their certificate have indicated that the depreciation was not charged to the Profit & Loss A/c. and therefore, the certificate was subject to Note No.9 amongst others. Submissions advanced by Mr. Khaitan must prevail. The Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss A/c., except as provided in the statute, in those cases where the accounts have been properly maintained. When the Statute provides for computation of book profit of the assessee being a Company which has computed the total income under this Act in respect of ....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1028 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation on leased assets - ownership on machinery - HELD THAT:- In the instant case admittedly, the machinery is owned by the assessee. The assessee had leased that machinery to its customers. That is the business the assessee is carrying on and therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] reversing the judgment of this Court in M/s ICDS Limited equally applies to the facts of this case and therefore, the order passed by the tribunal disallowing the depreciation claimed is liable to be set-aside. Disallowance of lease equalization reserve - HELD THAT:- The previous year involved in the case is 31.3.1998 and the assessment year is from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999. In order to over come such claim, by Finance Act No.2/2009 which came into effect from 1.4.1998 clause (g) was substituted to explanation to Sectio....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1027 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Applicability of section 14A for making disallowance out of income which eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - no nexus between the interest /dividend income earned from the Cooperative Societies and the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee on borrowed funds on the ground that there is no proof of the investment of such interest bearing funds to earn the said income without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to substantiate the above in full measure with proper evidences? HELD THAT:- In view of decision decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd vs. Union of India [1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal allowing the deduction to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest and....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1016 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Block assessment for undisclosed income u/s 158BD - mandatory requirement before initiating proceedings u/s. 158BD - Held that:- Referring to case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] satisfaction recorded by the assessment officer that any undisclosed income belonging to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 is available. This recording of satisfaction is a mandatory requirement. From the observations and law laid down in the case of Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is clear that recording of reason is a mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 158BD. That being so, we see no error in the order passed by the Tribunal that recording of reasons is mandatory provision. As far as alternate submission to the effect that in ....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1013 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Retrospectivity of amendment brought in section 40(a)(ia) - no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) required to be made as held by CIT(A) - belated deposit of TDS - Held that:- The Tribunal has followed its own judgment, by which, identical issue has been decided against the Revenue when the assessee, though deducted TDS before 31st March, 2005, relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, relating to expenditure claimed for the assessment year under consideration and paid the said amount to the Central Government before the due date of filing the return of income for A.Y. 2005-06, that expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. If it is so, the CIT(A) is justified in allowing claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. Hence, this appeal is also dismissed.
- 2014 (6) TMI 1008 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Best judgement assessment - Invoking provisions u/s 145(3) - application of profit rate of 3% on the estimated sale - AO has disbelieved the Account book submitted by the assessee mainly on the ground that sales are not supported by proper vouchers - Held that the sales are controlled and regulated by Excise Department and as there is no discrepancy in the stock register maintained and the Excise Department did not find any discrepancy - AO committed an error in disbelieving the Account book only on the ground that sales vouchers has not proper - there was no sufficient ground with the AO for invoking provisions u/s 145(3) - Decided in favor of assessee
- 2014 (6) TMI 1007 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 10A computation - up-linking charges deducted for computing export turnover u/s.10A - Held that:- Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee as relyin on Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., & Others (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) wherein held charges both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Section 10A deduction allowable to the assessee in respect of profit making unit -Whether the tribunal was correct in failing to appreciate the substituted Section 10A of the Act by Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 that the deduction is to be allowed u/s.10A of the Act on the total income of the assessee without setting out the loss from non-profit making units? - Held that:- As considered b....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 1000 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Tax on the interest received by the assessee on account of refund - Held that:- Section 244A provides, where refund of amount becomes due to the assessee under the Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the manner stipulated in the said Act. The said interest received by the assessee could be income in the hands of the assessee. Section 4 of the Act which is the charging section levies tax under the Act on such interest. The income received on 9.3.2004 is to be assessed for the years 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 which is previous year as the assessment year being 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005. When once the assessee receives the income by way of interest, the liability to pay tax under the Act arises. As that income is received prior to 31.3........ + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 996 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Initiating of proceedings u/s 147 - international transaction as identified as sham - assessment beyond ordinary period - Held that:- In case of assessment in relation to the present assessment year 2003-2004, it should be by the end of financial year 2008, while for the year 2004-2005, it should be by the end of financial year 2009. Before us, copies of such notices have not been produced. However, the learned Tribunal on fact found that the notice was issued beyond four years, but there has been no factual basis as required under the aforesaid provision to reopen the assessment beyond four years and within six years, meaning thereby pre-conditions for issuance of notice after four years and within six years, namely, the allegation of escapement of assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Sectio....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 995 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Proceedings initiated u/s 153A - non-availability of the books of accounts - Held that:- We notice that the Tribunal, on fact, found that assessment was done on the basis of the estimated income. It was found again that there is no incriminating material and in the course of search, no books of accounts and vouchers were found and it was admitted that the M.D. consequent to the completion of the assessments, the relevant books of accounts and vouchers were shifted to a godown and they were not able to locate the relevant books of accounts. We fail to understand when the assessment was made on the estimated income, how there can be relevancy of books of accounts and for that matter, non-availability of the books of accounts could be a factor to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 153-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of fact, correctly concluded that such exercise was not called for.
- 2014 (6) TMI 992 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seniority list of Income-Tax Officers - contempt proceedings against the respondents - Held that:- Department stated that entire seniority will have to be considered by CBDT looking to the proposal and other requirements which will take some more time. It is expected that such seniority list may be finalized as far as possible by 15th October, 2014. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
- 2014 (6) TMI 982 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appeal admitted on following substantial question of law :- Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that income received by the assessee during the assessment year in question from services/erection charges of plants and accessories was not a part and parcel of the income which it derived from their manufacturing activities from eligible undertakings/enterprises and, hence, they were not entitled to claim deduction available to them under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
- 2014 (6) TMI 981 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Eligibility for deduction under section 80IB - DEPB and duty drawback not considering - Held that:- We are not in agreement that the ITAT has erred in not considering both the aspects viz. the duty drawback as also the claim which was made towards DEPB. If DEPB was covered by Liberty India's judgment [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] then failure to consider duty drawback claim is unsustainable, is the plea. We are unable to agree with the same. Supreme Court has considered both the claims and held as above. Therefore, ratio of that judgment is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that if the claim was of Daman Unit of the Assessee, then the matter was squarely covered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue by Liberty India' judgment. From the co....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 980 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Violation u/s.11(5) and 13(1)(d) - whether the exemption is to be withdrawn for the entire income or the portion of the income? - Held that:- This issue is covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case reported in Director Of Income-Tax (Exemptions) Versus Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust(2000 (10) TMI 26 - BOMBAY High Court ). Following the aforesaid judgment, this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore Vs. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore [2014 (2) TMI 1033 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] has held the entire income of the assessee cannot be assessed for the tax, for violating under Section 11(5) read with Sec.31(1)(d) of the Act and what would become the subject matter of assessment is only that income which is the subject matter of violation. - Decided in favour of the assessee
- 2014 (6) TMI 977 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowances u/s 80IB - no separate books were maintained or separate balance sheet were filed claiming deduction - Held that:- Tribunal upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowances relied upon its earlier order in the case of Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union [2010 (2) TMI 1197 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] also confirmed by HC [2012 (1) TMI 310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein on identical facts it was held that even if no separate books were maintained or separate balance sheet were filed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act cannot be denied.We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. - Decided against revenue Disallowances under Section 80(P)(2)(d) - interest earned on the fixed deposit with Cooperative Bank and the Societies - Held that:- Consi....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 970 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- There is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the details supplied by the Assessee in the return of income while making the claim in respect of frontend fees were incorrect or erroneous or false. The Assessee has disclosed in its return of income that the amount of front end fees to be non taxable in India. The note was also annexed to the return giving the basis for which the claim was made. In these circumstances whether the Assessee's stand was justified or otherwise, surely the penalty proceedings could not have been initiated and the penalty could not have been imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee.