Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 404 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 (12) TMI 1374 - ITAT BANGALORE
Reopening of assessment - exemption u/s 11 and 12 denied - trust is not adhering to its objects of charity, rather it is in the business of profit making - as per AO assessee had made investment in shares and securities in violation to section 11(5) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the objects of the assessee-trust are of charitable in nature. It is registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. It has been enjoying exemption under section 11, 12 or 10(23C). AO has harboured a belief that since the assessee has made investment of accumulated funds in non-specified companies in violation to rule 11(5). This aspect has not been disputed by the assessee that investment was made in non-public companies as far as Murudeshwar Ceramic Ltd. is concerned. Whether this investment per se would denude the assessee from its claim of exempti....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1373 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - project was constructed was less than 1 acre - Claim denied on profits derived from the housing project 'Ved Vihar' - CIT(A) held that the area of the plot on which the said project was constructed was less than 1 acre and hence, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was not allowable to the assessee in respect of the said project - HELD THAT:- Assessee had bought the TDR rights and had been sanctioned to construct 12 additional flats in the existing building Nos.A and B of the said project and where it had already completed the originally sanctioned 80 flats within the stipulated period, the assessee was eligible to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The assessee had constructed 80 flats originally sanctioned by the commencement certificate dated 21.05.2004 before 31.03.2009 and the PMC had is....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1372 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest expenditure - rejection of books of accounts as the books of account is the basis for computation of book profits u/s 115JA - HELD THAT:- As Revenue Authorities as well as the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta [2013 (10) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI] Whether the interest liabilities constitutes ascertained one or not is also linked to the issue of rejection of books of accounts as the books of account is the basis for computation of book profits u/s 115JA of the Act. This is common issue qua the issue adjudicated in the case of the Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) and matter was set aside. Respectfully following the said order the issue raised in ground no. 4 should be set aside to the files of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. Charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B - HELD THAT:- As assessee submitted that....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1370 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- The section starts from the wordings, “The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act …”. Here we have to make a distinction between record and order, because, both these terms have distinct connotations. An order is the mind of the AO/Officer to incorporate or not to incorporate any point in the order, whereas the record forms the basis for formation and construction of the order. It is the record of the case, from which, one can ascertain, as to whether the AO had conducted adequate enquiry to form a legally correct inference. It is, then upto the AO/revenue authorities to incorporate his inference drawn in the order. DR could neither elaborate nor assist us to convince us that the inference drawn by the AO, after conducting exhaustive enquiry was an....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1367 - ITAT BANGALORE
Addition to Interest Income - Additions made on account of accrued interest on loans and advances without appreciating that after the amendment to section 145 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1997, banks are required to follow the mercantile system of accounting.-CIT-A deleted that addition - DR submitted that the assessee has to follow the provisions of section 145 of the Act for the purposes of computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT V Urban Co-operative Bank [2014 (10) TMI 740 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 2014 (11) TMI 94 - ITAT BANGALORE], we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the ....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1366 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
No interest in prosecuting appeal by assessee - HELD THAT:- In this case, notice fixing hearing on 28.11.2014 was sent to Assessee on 10.10.2014 through Registered A.D. but the notice was returned unserved by postal authorities with the remark “Left”. On the date of hearing i.e. on 28.11.2014 none appeared on behalf of Assessee nor any adjournment application was filed on behalf of the Assessee. Assessee has also not placed on record its present address and this indicates that the Assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, following the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd.[1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. The assessee shall however be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1365 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) v/s 271AAA - search and seizure action carried out - As per revenue disclosure of the income was not made voluntarily by the assessee company and such income would not have been disclosed by the assessee in the absence of a search - Whether case comes under the purview of section 271AAA? - HELD THAT:- As per the mandate u/s 271AAA of the Act after search initiated u/s 132 on or after 1st June, 2007 but before 1st July, 2012 penalty was leviable u/s 271AAA of the Act. Sub-section (3) of 271AAA clearly provides that in such case no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed. We agree with the ld.counsel of the assessee that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable, in as much as the case comes under the purview of section 271AAA of the Act. There is no ambiguity in this regard, and the view is also supported by the tribunal decision in the case of Cario International [2013 (10) TMI 1543 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1361 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Unaccounted income deposited in undisclosed bank account - Whether only peak amount worked out, in accordance with accepted principles of accountancy, should have been added as income in the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are unable to accept the stand of the Revenue that the assessee should be put to prove that the there was a direct nexus between the debit and credit entries in the bank account of the assessee with ICICI Bank. Assessee claimed that the peak amount in this case, with regard to ICICI Bank comes to ₹ 2,97,297/-. In these facts of the case, we restore the issue in the grounds of the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO with direction to make the addition of only the peak amount in the bank account of the assessee with ICICI Bank. The claim of the assessee that the peak amount comes to ₹ 2,97,297/....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1359 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194J - payments to the stockiests - order u/s 201(1) read with section 201(1A) - Whether relationship between the assessee and the stockiest is of “principal to principal‟ basis ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD. [2012 (5) TMI 203 - ITAT MUMBAI] relationship between the assessee and the stockiests is in the nature of “principal to principal‟ relationship and not that the appointment of the Manager by the assessee. The same was answered by the assessee and against the Revenue. It is the finding of the Hon‟ble High Court [2015 (1) TMI 873 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] .that the provisions of section 194J of the Act are not to be invoked with assessee is not making any payments to the stockiests. When the provisions of section 115J are not attracted by such transactions, it is the finding of th....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1357 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of Lease Equalization Reserve - Disallowance of expenditure it is not a prescribed expenditure u/s 30 to 37 - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal for AY 1998-99, wherein the Tribunal has extracted the observations made by the co-ordinate bench in the order passed for AY 1994-95 to 1997-98, wherein the Tribunal has explained the concept of Lease equalization charge and accordingly restored the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for carrying out fresh examination. Consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier years, we set aside the orders of Ld CIT(A) in this year and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of discussions made by the Tribunal in AY 1994-95 to 1997-98. MAT Computation - addition o....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1356 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of provision for gratuity u/s 43B - ascertained liability as allowable as deduction under section 40A(7)(b) - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the decisions relied on by the assessee, we find that this issue has been considered by various High Courts and held that the provision made by the assessee towards contribution to approved gratuity fund is an ascertained liability and is allowable as deduction under section 40A(7)(b)of the Act. It was further held that the provisions of section 40A(7)(b) overrides section 43B of the Act - See MEWAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1998 (2) TMI 169 - ITAT JAIPUR], BECHTEL INDIA (P) LTD [2007 (11) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT , DELHI] and COMMON WEALTH TRUST (P.) LTD., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS COMMON WEALTH TRUST (I.) LTD. [2004 (4) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT] Thus w....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1353 - ITAT RAIPUR
Addition on account of suppressed sales - GP on the suppressed sales - HELD THAT:- The assessee had maintained regular books of account and the AO had not come across any unaccounted purchase or suppressed sales. Only on the basis of power consumption, no addition could be made or sustained. It is a known fact that several factors affect the consumption of electricity-like loss of heat, poor quality of raw material inputs, poor workmanship/supervisory skills, presence of moisture, contents and fluctuation in the electricity supply. Most of the above factors are beyond management’s control and explanation cannot be pinpointed to any single reason. It is also a fact that the assessee was not manufacturing one item. Therefore, arithmetical formula should not have been applied for arriving at a conclusion. In our opinion, the FAA was fu....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1352 - ITAT RAIPUR
Addition on account of lower rice yield shown by the assessee - HELD THAT:- While making the addition AO had applied a mathematical formula claimed to have been adopted from FCI guidelines. It is very strange that before fastening tax liability to the assessee he did not consider it necessary to incorporate the reply of the assessee and rebut it. Principles of natural justice demand that the assessee is entitled to get a reasoned and speaking order. A reasoned order cannot be passed without considering the reply of the assessee filed by the assessee and without giving reasons as to why the reply was not acceptable. Once the assessee had made submission about the FCI Web site it was duty of the AO to give a clear finding about it, but he chose to remain silent about it. He had the case records of the assessee of earlier assessment years an....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1345 - ITAT MUMBAI
Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act - CIT-A refusing to take into consideration the relevant documents admitted - HELD THAT:- While refusing to take into consideration the relevant documents which were very much necessary for the just decision of the case CIT(A) failed to exercise his appellate jurisdiction u/s 250 of the Act. The duty was also cast upon the Ld. CIT(A) to admit and consider the evidence produced before him by the assessee. As in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1998 (2) TMI 107 - BOMBAY High Court] Powers conferred on the first appellate authority under sub-section (4) of section 250 of the Act, being a quasi-judicial power, it is incumbent on him to exercise the same, if the facts and circumstances justify. Even otherwise under Rule 46A(4) of the Income tax R....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1338 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - inaccurate particulars or concealment of income - HELD THAT:- We find that section 271(1)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. On the facts and circumstances of this case the assessee’s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. - See Case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1336 - ITAT MUMBAI
Levying penalty u/s 271B - reasonable cause which existed in not getting the accounts audited as provided u/s 44AB - failure to get account audited - Held that:- In the perspective of “reasonable cause” still it can be said that the assessee, under the facts available on record was under a “reasonable belief” that since in the case of a commission agent the assessee has received only commission charges, consequently, other reimbursable expenses are not to be includable as income of the assessee thus from this angle also the assessee was under a bona-fide belief that he is not to get his account audited since the income was below prescribed monetary limit. Thus, there was a reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited, so from this angle also the penalty is not imposable. In view of these facts, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1334 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rejection of application of registration of trust - as there is no winding up clause hence “the application cannot be said to have constituted a valid public charitable trust” - Held that:-Admittedly, as per the provisions of section 12AA(1)(b) of the Act, the authority concern is expected to satisfy himself about the objects of the trust of institution and the genuineness of its activities, but at the same time, such satisfaction is objective in nature. DIT(E) while rejecting the application of the assessee has nowhere mentioned that he was not satisfied with the objects of the trust or genuineness of its activities. DIT(E) has merely perused the audited accounts of the assessee and receipt of donation of ₹ 6 lakh out of which ₹ 3,50,000/- were incurred for educational activities including expenses on printing and stationary,....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1328 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194J - amount received from the insurance companies and deposited in Float A/c by the assessee being Third Party Administrator (TPA) - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Health India TPA Services P. Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 1153 - ITAT MUMBAI] as well as the decision in the case of Paramount Health Services (TPA) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2015 (3) TMI 185 - ITAT MUMBAI]. We find that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in those cases by holding that the payment made by the assessee is only to replenish the amount in floating account and, therefore, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made when the assessee has not claimed any such expenditure in P&L Account. - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (12) TMI 1326 - ITAT DELHI
TDS u/s 194C - non-deduction of TDS by the assessee on so-called reimbursement of advertisement expenses to its dealers - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- From the facts of the assessee’s case, it appears that it was a structure arrangement wherein the payments are routed through the distributors to circumvent the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act. The bill raised for advertisement in the Danik Bhaskar by DB Corp Ltd., Zone-I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal was in the name of Spice Communication Ltd. And the client name is also mentioned as Spice Communication Ltd. The SPG Distributors have mentioned in its letter to Mr. Sahil Kohli, Spice Mobile Ltd., placed at page 15 of the paper book, that they have already issued a cheque no.136282 of ₹ 2,24,795/- and asked for reimbursement. Thus, the bill raised by the advertisement agency was ....... + More
- 2014 (12) TMI 1325 - ITAT JAIPUR
Taxability of foreign allowance received from Indian Employer - assessee was a non-resident during the year - assessee had paid taxes on the salary and allowances received in Netherlands - tax liability borne by the employer was being redeemed by the assessee in India - CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the appellant was non-resident and foreign allowances were not received in India during the year under consideration but received in Netherland. Such allowances wee paid by IBM India using a foreign currency travel card which could be used only outside India. Held that:- The appellant was non-resident during the year under consideration and allowances were received by him in Netherlands. - The employer wrongly deducted TDS, the appellant had claimed refund on it. The Indian income has been considered by the appellant as taxable but the allowances paid outside the India are not taxable U/s 5(2) of the Act in the case of non-resident - Decided against the revenue.