Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 153 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.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1475 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - scope and powers under Section 263 of CIT - No enquiries during the course of the assessment proceedings. In the present case the tribunal found as a fact that the “Principle of Mutuality” - HELD THAT:- The tribunal has examined this aspect in [2016 (6) TMI 370 - ITAT DELHI]. The tribunal has also examine case of SHIMLA VERSUS M/S GREENWORLD CORPORATION AND M/S THE GREEN WORLD CORPORATION VERSUS ITO, PARWANOO & ANR. [2009 (5) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] with regard to the scope and powers under Section 263 of the said Act. Also order would be erroneous only when the assessing officer makes no enquiries during the course of the assessment proceedings. In the present case the tribunal found as a fact that the “Principle of Mutuality” had been examined threadbare by the assessing officer itself and ....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1468 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Broken period interest - ITAT treated it as revenue expenditure - substantial question of law - HELD THAT:- The question is a substantial question of law that merits consideration. Accordiongly, we admit the same. The finding of fact is to the effect that securities are held as stock-in-trade and that the income from sale therefrom is offered to tax as revenue. In the light of the admitted facts as seen from the order of the authorities, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards broken period is liable to be allowed as revenue expenditure. There is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in this regard. Question stands answered in favour of the assessee, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. CIT [2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] -The appeals are dismissed.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1463 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation recalled - Revenue will suffer loss as it cannot recover tax on the income of the Transferor Company - Both the companies suffering losses - Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger u/s 72A - HELD THAT:- No bar either in the Companies Act, or in the Income Tax Act, which prevents the two companies, which are suffering losses, from amalgamating. Section 72A of the Act deals with the post-amalgamation scenario. By no stretch of imagination, does Section 72A of the Act debar two companies from amalgamating. In fact, Section 72A of the Act deals with the relationship between the Income Tax Department, and the assessee in the post-amalgamated period. Therefore, the contention being raised by the learned counsel for t....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1454 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reassessment proceeding - HELD THAT:- Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Tribunal was justified in not declaring the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order passed thereto as nullity? (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Tribunal has not committed grave legal error in setting aside the entire quantum proceedings?”
- 2017 (2) TMI 1453 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deposit of Provident Fund under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme - additions made by the Assessing Officer have been interfered with by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, this appeal by the department - HELD THAT:- We find that the learned tribunal [2015 (7) TMI 1350 - ITAT JABALPUR] of the aforesaid order had given reasons for allowing the appeal. Today before us an order of assessment dated 30.12.2010 is produced, whereby in a proceeding held under Section 143(3) for the year 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2014 also the Assessing Officer has accepted the same principle and has decided the assessment order in favour of the respondent assessee. No substantial question of law involved, warranting consideration, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1444 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12A once granted could not be reviewed or withdrawn in the absence of stipulation to the effect in Section 12AA(3) - HELD THAT:- We have today by our order in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. North Indian Association - [2017 (3) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held that Income is brought to tax to secure the Revenue's interest but it does not necessarily result in automatic cancellation of Registration. Therefore, the mere fact that in one particular year, the respondent assessee may have income receipts in excess of ₹ 10 lakhs or such other limit as provided in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, that by itself would not warrant cancellation of the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act . No substantial question of law.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1416 - TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
TDS u/s 195 - commission payments made by way of demand drafts and sent through medium of couriers to a non-resident abroad, are remittances deemed to have been received in India, by virtue of Section 5(2)(a) - HELD THAT:- As decided in SRIRAM REFREGERATION INDUSTRIES VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2014 (4) TMI 277 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] this Court held that in the absence of a contract between a foreign bank and a bank in India, the bank cannot be taken to be acting as an agent. Therefore, the first question of law has to be answered against the appellant/Revenue, since Section 195 itself is not applicable in such cases. Income accrued in India - Commission payments were made in the books of accounts of the assessee maintained in India, the commission payments would be deemed to have been received in India - HELD THAT:- The decision of....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1400 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable activity - Grant of benefit u/s 12A denied - activity of the applicant could not be termed as charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) and there were huge surpluses and accounts were not audited and returns of income for such years in which total income exceed ₹ 50,000/- were not filed alongwith Form No. 10B - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Spic Educational Foundation [2001 (11) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein held non - filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, would not defeat the claim of the assessee for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 The registration U/s 12A of the Act for entitlement to claim the benefits U/Ss 11 & 12 of the Act requires two conditions to be fulfilled, firstly that the person concerned....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1399 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disallowance of expenses debited as cost of ESOP in profit and loss account - allowable deduction u/s 37 - Held that:- The issue stands covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the order of this court in CIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 404 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The court had affirmed the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the said case where the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of dis allowance of the expenses debited as cost of ESOP in profit and loss account was deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the present case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has by the impugned order restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is consistent with ....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1378 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - period of limitation - whether penalty is to be levied in piecemeal as and when the individual issues of an assessment are concluded - The question is, whether in respect to six items also period of limitation would commence from the date Tribunal passed order on 19.02.2001, when it was received by CIT or will commence when, after remand, assessment order is passed by AO in respect to two items and that order attained finality and communicated to CIT. Held that:- In the present case, if penalty was to be imposed in respect to 6 items which stood final after judgment and order dated 19.02.2001 passed by Tribunal received by CIT(A) on 14.03.2002, the limitation would come to an end after six months, i.e., 30.09.2002. The argument advanced otherwise by learned counsel for appellant (revenue), therefore, cannot....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1377 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal admitted for for the following question of laws:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Office to allow set off of brought unabsorbed depreciation allowance for the Assessment Years 1995-96, 1998-99, 2000-01 and 2001-02 when there was specific prohibition as per clause (iii)(b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 32 to allow carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation allowance beyond 8 years from the assessment year for which the depreciation allowance was first computed? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in directing the Assessing Office to allow set off of brought unabsorbed depreciation allowance for the Assessment Years 1995-96, 1998-99, 2000-01 and ....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake - application under Section 254(2) - alternate remedy of appeal under Section 260A - Held that:- We find that Court has clearly observed that an appeal under Section 260A does not lie merely on rejection of an application which does not decide substantial issue involved between the parties but pre-condition is that a substantial question of law must have arisen. If no substantial question of law arisen, no appeal would lie under Section 260A of Act, 1961. Referring to a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Chem Amit vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004 (11) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), Court observed that if an application under Section 254(2) is allowed mistake is rectified in original order, it amounts to an order passed under Section 254(1) against which appeal would lie. Court, in para 15 ....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1371 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that:- Taking note of the CBDT Circular dt. 10/12/2015 and the tax effect which indisputably in the instant case is less than ₹ 20 lac, much less than what has been prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. However, it is made clear that the substantial questions of law raised in the instant appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding, if arises in future. At the same time we consider it appropriate to observe that if the appeal falls in any of the exceptions as referred to in the Circular dt. 10/12/2015, the Revenue will be at liberty to move an application for recalling of the order if so advised. Accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeal stand dismissed as not pressed.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1366 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GP estimation - Tribunal reducing GP rate to 6% as determined by Settlement Commission at 8% - Held that:- Tribunal while dealing with this issue has extensively examined the contention raised by the parties and thereafter recorded findings which is essentially a finding of fact accepted the gross profit rate at 6 per cent. Shri Gaurav Mahajan has not been able to point out any specific evidence or ground raised in the appeal which may suggest that the gross profit rated adopted by the Tribunal is either perverse or based on no evidence. As such, the findings recorded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not require any interference. Allowing telescoping of income - whether undisclosed income of the assessee shown in the form of income from "forfeiture of advances from customers and cessation of trading liability" was not fr....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1363 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Treatment to entertainment tax subsidy - Tribunal as relying on the decision of Chaphalkar Brothers v/s. [2013 (6) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in holding that the entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt?” - Held that:- Revenue does not dispute the fact that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Chaphalkar Brothers (supra). However, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue as the decision of this court in Chaphalkar Brothers (supra) is subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court. However, in the absence of any stay of the decision of this Court in Chaphalkar Brothers (supra), no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal in following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. No substantial question of law.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1362 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TDS u/s 194H - TDS liability on dealer's incentive - examination of the relationship between the Respondent-Assessee and its dealers as principal-to-principal basis - Held that:- The impugned order of the Tribunal has held that the dealers incentive is not subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H of the Act as the sale between the Respondent-Assessee and its dealer was on principal to principal basis. The impugned order of the Tribunal place reliance upon its earlier order for the Assessment Year 2007-08 wherein on detailed examination of the relationship between the Respondent-Assessee and its dealers was found to be on principal to principal basis and, therefore, not hit by Section 194H of the Act. The impugned order, therefore allowed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal. The issue now stands concluded against the Revenue by t....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1361 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Treatment of interest on Non Performing Assets (NPAs) - Revenue contends that given the obligation of the assessee to maintain books in accordance with Section 209 of the Companies Act, 1956 on accrual basis, it had to reflect the interest accrued upon unpaid loans (NPAs) - Held that:- Assessee successfully contended before the ITAT that the treatment it accorded to such transactions was in accord with the decision of this Court in CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (2010 (11) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT) as held Assessee bound by Reserve Bank of India directions to treat deposit as non-performing asset – Interest does not accrue - question of law decided against the Revenue This Court also notices that the assessee’s method of treatment of such accrued interest was also subject matter of a previous order of this Court in CIT v. GE Countrywide....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1357 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition on documents fund in search - Presumption as to documents u/s 292C - Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc. - addition to income - Held that:- Tribunal has given effect to the provision by drawing presumption against Assessee - however, mere drawing of presumption does not mean that every document will result in some addition. For that purpose one has to mention as to the nature of document, nature and year of transaction, quantum as to how it should be treated, whether it is an investment, expenditure, income or earning, and unless all these things are clear, no addition can be made - thus we are clear that every document will not result in some addition, as has been recorded by Tribunal - Decided in favor of assessee.
- 2017 (2) TMI 1352 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Under Valuation of closing stock - entitlement to value the article at market value OR cost price - valuation of closing stock being based on "realizable value" as had been quantified by actual realisation after the close of the accounting year - Held that:- Tribunal has not looked into this aspect of the matter that valuation can be made on the basis of actual cost price, marketing rate whichever is lower and instead it has taken only the market rate and that too as on 02.04.2010 that is just one day later to determining for valuation of stock in trade which is not consistent with the law laid down. In the matter of Sugar as we have noted above in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ) Court allowed valuation of closing stock at levy price though it was less than cost of manuf....... + More
- 2017 (2) TMI 1320 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - Non granting refund of excess amount deducted by the assessee at source - Held that:- If the petitioner is correct in pointing out that there has been a clear excess deduction of TDS and in depositing the Government revenue, subject to fulfillment of conditions of the scheme, petitioner must receive refund thereof. Unless the delay is gross or intentional or arising out of inaction and lethargy on the part of the petitioner, tax mistakenly deposited cannot be retained by the Government on the ground of delay. CBDT undoubtedly has powers to condone the delay even if we assume the Commissioner does not have such powers. In the present case, the dispute is lingering since quite some time. In any case, the delay is not gross and the repercussion in law is not widespread. We may recall the last date for filing refund cla....... + More