|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 586 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 77,29,500/- as agricultural income, suffice it to say that the said question is concluded by the finding of fact. The CIT(Appeals) has considered all the relevant materials and facts and thereafter recorded the finding of fact accepting the entire income as agricultural income. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, it has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that against the judgment dated 30/3/2007 in ITA No.269/LUC/06 for A.Y.2001-02 the appeal No.610/2007 filed by the Department has already been dismissed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 06/10/2010. In view of the aforesaid, there is no substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal. The earlier order of the Tribunal having already been confirmed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 06/10/2010 (supra) no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 584 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o, the business income assessable to be included in gross total income comes to Rs. ‘nil’ and gross total income consists of income from other sources only of ₹ 5,46,845/- and, therefore, Explanation to Section 73(1) is not applicable as per this judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Hence, by respectfully following this judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited by the Ld. A.R., we hold that in the facts of the present case as discussed above, Explanation to Section 73(1) is not applicable and, therefore, loss of ₹ 15,66,518/- from business of purchase and sale of shares on delivery basis cannot be considered as speculation loss and only the loss from commodity transaction business of ₹ 21,60,668/- has to be considered as speculation loss. We direct the A.O. accordingly. o p /o p 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p 12. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove. o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 583 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Depreciation @ 50% on machinery claimed to have been purchased under TUFS - Held that:- Assessee is entitled for higher depreciation under TUFS
-
2012 (4) TMI 573 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Short deduction of tax at source - Held that:- We dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue by holding that the Jammu Development Authority is in exempted category where the provisions of section 194(1) are not applicable. We also hold that exception provided in section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Act and as per notification, the Jammu Development Authority is a creation of J & K Development Act and satisfies the condition at Entry No.39 of the said notification and we hold that no tax was deductible on accrued interest on FDRs of Jammu Development Authority with J & K Bank Ltd. Keeping in view the above discussions, we hold that no interference is called for in the well reasoned impugned order passed by the ld. first appellate authority and accordingly we uphold the same.
-
2012 (4) TMI 570 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and confirm the same.” 8. Respectfully following the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case and on the similar ground, we hold that CIT(A) has rightly reversed the order of AO and we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 9. The ld. CIT(A) further allowed a relief of ₹ 7,74,358/- being difference between total expenditure of ₹ 11,40,958/- and ₹ 3,66,600/-, the amount paid against the total determined liability. However, this amount of ₹ 7,74,358/- was neither a ground of appeal before CIT(A) nor was this an addition made by AO vide assessment order dated 16.11.2010. Therefore, ground no. 2 taken by the Department carries no force and it is rejected. 10. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.04.2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 567 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he same to be in the capital field because the assessee had valued its property with the intention of selling them. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The learned AR argued before us stating that these expenditures are revenue in nature and may be allowed. The learned DR supported the orders of the revenue. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records available before us, we are of the view that these expenditures fall in the revenue field and not in capital field as held by the revenue. Expenditure incurred by the assessee for revaluation of the asset do not bring any enduring benefit to the assessee. These expenses are routine in nature and has to be written off as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we hold this issue in favour of the assessee. o p /o p 19. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court on 30-04-2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 565 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ere it is claimed that no expenditure is incurred for earning tax-free income. Rule 8D provides the method of computing the disallowance. Sub-rule (i) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the AO has applied only sub-rule (2) and that too in so far as its clauses (ii) and (iii) are concerned. He has not taken into account clause (i) which is also not applicable to the facts of the case. The rule does not contemplate apportionment of the expenditure as done by the assessee or the ld. CIT(Appeals). However, it is also a fact that the AO has not recorded reasons as to why computation furnished by the assessee is not correct. In the light of this omission, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on peculiar facts of this case as she has worked out reasonable amount of disallowance taking into account the ratio of tax-free income and taxable income arising from shares and scrip. 3.3 Thus, ground no. 7 dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 563 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... red the issue in the light of the above legal pronouncement. Specially the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not available at that time, hence, the Assessing Officer’s assessment order was devoid of merits as also the law applicable . Now we have got certain guidelines, though can not be said to be exhaustive or complete, but on these lines, the Assessing Officer is expected henceforth to compute the correct disallowance, needless to say after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter is restored to be decided afresh, hence, this ground of the assessee may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 18. As a result, we summarize the result as under 1. Revenue’s appeals for A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed. 2. Assessee’s appeals for A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2007-08 are treated as allowed only for statistical purposes. 3. Assessee’s CO for A.Y. 2004-05 is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 496 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – LTCG on sale of factory land and building at Siliguri - deduction u/s 54G denied and penalty imposed on ground that area where assessee's undertaking was located was not declared to be 'urban area' – Held that:- Claim is declined on the ground that the place where assessee's industrial undertaking is located has not been declared to be an 'urban area' - something which is highly technical and it cannot be against the preponderance of probabilities, particularly in the light of legal advice rendered to the assessee, that the assessee made the error bona fide. As long as there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct of the assessee, the onus of the assessee stands discharged. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty – Decided against the Revenue.
-
2012 (4) TMI 495 - ITAT, KOLKATA
Assessee firm of solicitors and advocates- in reassessment proceedings AO noted that the assessee has made payments to various lawyers for their professional services, but has not deducted tax at source under section 194J such payments are to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) - assessee's contention that the amounts paid to the lawyers were reimbursed by assessee's clients, and, therefore, the amounts paid to the lawyers were never claimed as a deduction in the first place - It was then contended that when deduction is not claimed in respect of these amounts, there cannot be any occasion to invoke section 40(a)(ia)- It appears from the copy of TDS certificates that the appellant had raised the composite bills for entire work on its clients and was accordingly paid after deduction of tax – Held that:- As a corollary to this position, unless a deduction is claimed in respect of the said amount, under sections 30 to 38, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot come into play at all - the manner in which taxes have been deducted by the end user of the legal services cannot be determinative of whether the assessee has claimed it as reimbursement or no - restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary verifications on this factual aspect.
-
2012 (4) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution Of India- Petitioner is engaged in the business of turn key projects - a warranty clause providing for warranty of performance - a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued in respect of the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 stating that there were reasons to believe that the petitioner s income, chargeable to income tax, as estimated assessment for the aforesaid assessment years, within the meaning of Section 147 of IT Act - petitioner submitted that the said notices had been issued beyond the period of four years and the present assessment proceedings are based only on a change of opinion – Writ was filed - Held that:- the assessing authority had issued the impugned notices on the ground that there were reasons to believe that certain income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 - It is for the petitioner to raise its objections, if any, in respect of the impugned notices - Even assessing authorities concerned had accepted the methods of accounting for past years, it is for the assessee to substantiate its claim by furnishing the relevant pursuant to the impugned notices issued u/s 148 - when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under a statute, this Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, under article 226 of the constitution of India - the writ petitions stand dismissed - open to the petitioner in the above writ petitions to raise its objections within a period of four weeks from date of Order.
-
2012 (4) TMI 490 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interim stay of demand – assessee engaged in real estate business following completed contract method – addition of Rs 1.94 crores made under scrutiny assessment – stay petition filed before CIT got rejected – during hearing of writ petition, petitioner submitted to pay Rs 40 lacs for disposal of the appeal – Held that:- Petitioner is directed to deposit said sum within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereon, third respondent shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of four months.
-
2012 (4) TMI 489 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery of duty - Petition to defer recovery proceedings initiated during pendency of appeal against the order and stay petition - Held that:- 2nd respondent is directed to decide on stay petition within a period of one month. Meanwhile further proceedings for recovering the amount due under said orders will be kept in abeyance.
-
2012 (4) TMI 488 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction Power of Commissioner - Assessee’s claim in respect of deductions on account of payment of bonus was allowed under Section 43B of the Act - said claim had been allowed in the assessment year 1994-95 also - proceedings initiated for rectification under Section 154/155 were dropped - initiation of suo motu revisional jurisdiction by seeking to revise order of assessment in lieu of the interest of Revenue as the assessee had claimed the deduction twice – CIT set aside the order of assessment and directed re-computation - the assessee approached Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - writ petition was opposed and it was submitted that merely because rectification proceedings were dropped, did not affect jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 – Learned Single Judge held that the writ petition could be entertained as order of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction - Held that:- the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act - an error was noticed by the Commissioner in the order of the AO and thus it could not be held that such an order was beyond the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner - allow appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 487 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of reopening of assessment beyond 4 years – Trust - A.Y. 2004-05 – Revenue contended that provision made in the accounts cannot be treated as income applied to the objects of the trust hence escapement of income – not entitled for double deduction by way of claiming both capital expenditure as application of income and depreciation on capital assets – Held that:- Second contention of revenue is not sustained, since same has been decided in favor of assessee for A.Y. 2003-04. Further, since Income & Expenditure A/c clearly reflects provision for doubtful accounts it is ex facie, evident that there was no suppression of material facts by the assessee. Therefore, in absence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, notice issued u/s 148 is quashed – Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 486 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Appeal by Revenue against the Tribunal - challenging the order that interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act cannot be levied against the assessee as the computation of income has been made under Section 115JA of the Act – Held that:- The pre requisite condition for applicability of Section 234B is that the assessee is liable to pay tax under Section 208 and the expression "assessed tax" is defined to mean the tax on the total income determined under Section 143(1) or under Section 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source - The expression "assessed tax" is defined to mean the tax assessed on regular assessment which means the tax determined on the application of Section 115J/115JA in the regular assessment - there is no exclusion of Section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B – appeal of revenue accepted.
-
2012 (4) TMI 479 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition - principal agent relationship - addition on the ground of surplus in RGCTP account on sale of development rights to M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., made by the AO - The assessee-Board and the Chandigarh Administration are not natural persons but juristic entities and hence there cannot be any oral agreement between them to create agency. The admitted position is that there is no written contract between them to create agency. After taking into account all the materials brought on record including the legal position, we confirm the finding of the AO/CIT(A) that the assessee-Board was not an agent of the Chandigarh Administration in so far as the said project is concerned. All the pleas taken by the assessee in this behalf are therefore rejected.
.
Regarding diversion of income - if the income, before it reaches the assessee, is diverted away by superior title so that the assessee, when he receives the income, has to pass it on to a third party, the portion passed on, or is liable to be passed on, is not the income of the assessee but of the person to whom it is passed on or is liable to be passed on - Held that: there is no diversion of income arising from the commercial exploitation of land owned by the assessee by an overriding title in favour of the Chandigarh Administration - it is held that the impugned sums accruing to the assessee in pursuance of the Development Agreement did not stand diverted at source by any over-riding title, which is antecedent in point of time, in favour of the Chandigarh Administration - The application or destination of the income has nothing to do with its accrual or taxability.
.
Whether the AO is right in holding that the impugned amount has accrued to the assessee in the year under appeal and taxing the same as such in the year under appeal - The case of the AO is that the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and hence the entire bid price amounting to Rs. 821.21 crores being consideration for granting the leasehold and development rights to the Developer has accrued to the assessee in the year under appeal and therefore is chargeable to tax in the year under appeal - assessee has followed accrual system of accounting, the AO has rightly taxed the impugned sum in the year of accrual, i.e., the year under appeal, and not on the basis of receipt or in the years of actual receipt - Appeal is dismissed
-
2012 (4) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Block assessment - Search and seizure - Undisclosed income - Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 158 BC of the Act on 11.03.1997 directing the assessee to furnish return of income in Form -2B for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 - In addition to the above sum of Rs.75 lakhs, the assessee also paid another sum of Rs.25 lakhs to AIADMK on 13.07.1995 as is evidenced by the statement of his Bank Account - it is an undisputed fact that the assessee would have generated more than Rs.7,73,250/- for the 10 assessment years during the period 1987-88 to 1997-98. Hence the assessee would not have earned any amount from undisclosed source - Held that: it is clear that the Tribunal had given a finding that the assessee had established the source of fund from where it was collected and the collected money was given to the AIADMK head quarters for Building Fund - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2012 (4) TMI 476 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of Audit report u/s 142(2A) by the AO - Undervaluation of closing stock - it is submitted that there was a change in method of valuation of closing stock. In this connection, she has drawn our attention to the table noted by the Assessing Officer, who has held that the closing stock was bifurcated into three categories; finished goods, semi finished goods and goods under process - assessee has, before us, filed a chart giving year-wise details of the closing stock from the assessment year 1997-98 to 2005-06 in respect of finished goods, semi finished goods, goods under process and raw material. The said chart indicates that the closing stock was exported or was sold in different time spans in each year - Assessing Officer did not interfere/reject the valuation of the closing stock made by the assessee @ 90%, 74% and 60% of the sale value for finished, semi finished and goods under process - Considering the volume of business and numerous items involved, the assessee has been valuing the finished goods, semi finished goods and goods in progress on the basis of sale price of these items sold in the subsequent year after deducing a particular margin, which has been uniformly followed by the assessee in the earlier and the subsequent years - for assessment year 2003-04, an assessment order was passed on 31st March, 2006 and in the said assessment order no addition whatsoever was made to the closing stock but the method adopted by the assessee for the said assessment year was same - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding addition of Rs.25,80,879/- made by the AO on account of travelling expenses - Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 25,80,879/- The tribunal while partly deleting the disallowance held that the expenses were incurred for purpose of business under Section 37 - Held that: tribunal has estimated and disallowed 20% of the foreign travel expenditure on the ground that it may not have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding addition u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act on the ground that excessive/unreasonable expenditure was incurred on getting garments fabricated from associate concerns, namely, R.A. Exports and Sensational Exports - Held that: the disallowance had been made mainly on the basis of some technical defaults noted by the A.O. The assessee has satisfactorily explained the absence of GRN or challans, which were not required as the work was being done at the factory premises of the assessee - Assessing Officer did not conduct any investigation or verification into the reasonableness of the said expense with reference to payment made to third parties or fair market charges payable for similar nature of work - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding rejection of book of accounts - High Court has clearly observed that absence of stock register, in a given situation, may not per se lead to an inference that the accounts were incomplete or false but this issue has to be examined keeping view the other factors, which include fall in gross profit rate - Held that: the contention of the Revenue that stock register was not maintained and the relevant column of the auditor‟s report record indicate absence of the stock register, justify rejection of the books of accounts, cannot be accepted - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2012 (4) TMI 475 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search and seizure - Block assessment - Undisclosed income - Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases - it is stated that the block assessment proceedings were to be completed by 25th August, 2007 but in view of the stay granted by the Supreme Court, the proceedings were still pending - The third proviso was inserted in 2009 by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1988 is as under:- “Provided also that the period during which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment are stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded from the period specified in the first proviso - The contention relating to communication of the order also need not be decided as there is no order extending the provisional attachment under Section 281B on or after 24th January, 2008 - It is not the contention of the Revenue and it was not urged and in our opinion rightly that the third proviso incorporates a deeming provision, which has the effect of continuation or extension of the last order under Section 281B dated 19th July, 2007 which was upto and valid till 24th January, 2008 - It does not stipulate that the provisional attachment order issued, shall be deemed to be effective and continue beyond the stipulated period mentioned in the order, when there is an injunction or an order by a Court staying the assessment/reassessment proceedings The contention of the petitioner is that there is no connection between the block assessment proceedings and the refunds which are due to the petitioner - The “connection” mentioned in the said order has reference to the reasons stated in the order of provisional attachment and whether the said reasons have any nexus or connection with the assessment/reassessment proceedings, which have been stayed by the Supreme Court Whether the Revenue can pass a fresh order under Section 281B in view of the third proviso to the said Section introduced/inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1988 - The petitioner in fact had filed an application CM No. 2845/2010 challenging the retrospective amendment, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26th May, 2010.
............
|
