|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 887 Records
-
2019 (7) TMI 1964 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(i) - AO disallowed deduction as held that (i) the assessee is a Co-operative Bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank, (ii) the assessee fulfils the condition laid down in section 56(c)(ccv) of Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for being a Co-operative Bank - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee own case [2014 (10) TMI 1063 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held we cannot entertain the Revenue’s contention that section 80P(4) would exclude not only the co-operative banks other than those fulfilling the description contained therein but also credit societies, which are not co-operative banks. In the present case, respondent assessee is admittedly not a credit co-operative bank but a credit co-operative society. Exclusion clause of sub-section (4) of section 80P, therefore, would not apply. In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed.’
Similar view is taken by the Tribunal’s Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Mumbai Teleworkers Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI] and in the case of M/s. Kulswami Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 355 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1963 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - International transactions/activities in respect of one of the services rendered to its associated enterprises i.e. (AE) - Assessee was engaged in knowledge management systems - Whether ITAT erred in concluding that for the AYs in question, the Assessee had rendered Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services to its Associated Enterprises which according to the Assessee was contrary to the documents on record? - Revenue on the other hand points out that for these very AYs, on the question of exclusion of comparables, the Revenue's appeals against the impugned order of the ITAT have been dismissed by this Court - HELD THAT:- In view of the above submission, it is considered appropriate to direct that the impugned order of the ITAT returning the above finding qua the activity of the Assessee for the AYs in question will not constitute a precedent if such issue were to arise in future in the Assessee's cases.
In other words, the question framed by the Court for consideration in these appeals is left open for decision in an appropriate case.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1961 - ITAT SURAT
Capital gain - valuation of FMV as on 01.04.1981 - CIT rejecting Government Approved Valuer report for computing fair market value as on 01.04.1981 @ 250 per sq. meter for the land situated at Village Karadva and @ 200 for the land situated at Sania Kande Surat by adopting rim Reverse Index Method and by adopting against the same the fair market value @ 30 per sq. meter for both lands - HELD THAT:- We find that the Government Registered Valuer has considered the rate of land at village Karadva @250 per sq. meter and for land at village Sania Kande @200 per sq. meter as against which the DVO has adopted the rate @ 14.18 and 5.59 per sq. meter respectively. Whereas Ld. CIT (A) has considered the rate for both land @ 30 per sq. meter.
Considering, the variation in three authorities, and considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it would be fair, reasonable and logic if the average rate of adopted by the Government Registered Valuer of the assessee and DVO and Ld. CIT (A) is considered for average valuation of FMV as on 01.04.1981 considering the ratio laid down in the case of the case Vijay Kumar M Shah [2009 (2) TMI 501 - ITAT MUMBAI] as cited both Ld. CIT (A) as well as the learned counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, the arriving rate comes to Rs.99.95 rounded to Rs. 100 per sq. meter i.e. [250+200+30] for both land under consideration. Accordingly, the AO is directed to worked out long-term capital gain by taking arrive rate @ 100 as FMV as on 01.04.1981 for both impugned the land under consideration. In view of this matter, Ground No. 1 to 4 of the appeal are therefore, partly allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1960 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - as argued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed time - Whether it is compulsory to make an application in writing to invoke the provisions of rule 27 of ITAT rules? - HELD THAT:- We note that the dispute regarding the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act was very much in the notice of the Ld. DR as evident from the order sheet entries maintained by the registry office of the ITAT who sought times to revert on the issue raised under rule 27 of ITAT Rules on the reasoning that he will take the report from the office of the AO. Therefore, there remains no ambiguity that the affected party was duly given the opportunity - we are of the view the issue raised under rule 27 of ITAT rules was very much in the knowledge of the Ld. DR. As such the case was fixed for hearing on several occasions as part heard, meaning thereby the Ld. DR was very familiar with the issue as discussed above.
We also note that the assessee has also made an application under rule 27 of ITAT rules vide letter dated 13-03-2019. The relevant extract of the application has already been extracted in the preceding paragraph.
The above application was also supplied to the Ld. DR as well and the matter was heard up to 30th April 2019. Therefore it is clear that the other party was well-informed about the invocation of the issue under the rule 27 of ITAT Rules. Therefore we conclude that the Ld. AR has rightly invoked the provisions of rule 27 of ITAT rules.
Non-adjudication of the issue by CIT - Notice issued u/s 143(2) was time-barred - whether the non-adjudication of the issue raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) amounts to deemed rejection the ground of appeal of the assessee? - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) decided the technical issue in favor of the assessee on other reasons except for the issue on hand, i.e., nonissuance of the statutory notice. Thus the question arises whether the assessee was aggrieved because of non-adjudication of the ground of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). The answer is certainly in affirmative. But the assessee chose not to appeal as it succeeded on other reasons/ contentions raised before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Revenue filed an appeal before us on those points which were decided by the Ld. CIT (A) in favor of the assessee. Now the controversy arises whether the assessee can raise the issue not decided by the Ld.CIT (A) under rule 27 of ITAT rules before us. In our considered view, the assessee was very much entitled to raise the issue under rule 27 of ITAT Rules which was not decided by the Ld. CIT (A) as the point of contention of the assessee relates to the same issue raised by the Revenue.
Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) - We conclude that there was not issued the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed time. Thus in the absence of the statutory notice, the assessment framed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act is not sustainable. Hence the ground raised by the assessee in the application under rule 27 is allowed.
Reopening based on revenue audit objection - CIT(A) has passed a speaking order, which is self-explanatory and reproduced herein above. Thus,we are in agreement with the finding of the ld. CIT-A that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of Act based on revenue audit objection is not permissible. Therefore we concur with the finding of the learned CIT(A) after placing the reliance on the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah And Sons [1966 (10) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1958 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment of trust - SCN calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the registration u/s 12(A)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not be canceled - HELD THAT:- As in the instant case, though the petitioner has sought for information way back in the year 2008, such a representation was not considered till the year 2010, which had prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition. As such, it would be justifiable for this Court to interfere into the Show Cause Notice and grant further time for the respondent to act on such a request made by the petitioner pursuant to the Show Cause notice.
Respondent submitted that if the details and information sought for by the petitioner touches upon confidential matters of investigation or the like, it may not be permissible under law for them to furnish such documents. Nevertheless, such information and documents which are permissible in law will be considered, if the petitioner approaches the respondent.
The petitioner is granted liberty to file an additional reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 21.07.2008, seeking for details and information required by them and on receipt of such an information, the respondent shall consider the same on its own merits and take necessary action.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1956 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of claim of expenditure on repairs and maintenance of building, plant and machinery - As per AO expenditure incurred on Office building and Hotel is capital in nature, since the same would not qualify as current repairs within the meaning of sec. 30/31 of the Income-tax Act - HELD THAT:- Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO, since the nature of work carried on by the assessee would determine the character of the expenditure. If the expenditure has resulted in creations of new asset, undisputedly the same shall be treated as capital expenditure. On the contrary, if the expenditure has been incurred to maintain/replace an existing asset, then the same may be treated as revenue expenditure. We notice that the assessee has furnished the details of expenditure, but did not furnish the details of nature of expenditure, which shall determine the character of expenditure. Accordingly, as stated earlier, this issue requires to be examined at the end of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO. Since the Revenue has not challenged the decision rendered by the ld CIT(A), the relief granted by the first appellate authority shall remain intact.
Admission of additional claim - Setting of loss suffered in passenger service fee/service component against the business income - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the claim of the assessee has not been examined by the AO, since the said claim was made for the first time before the ld CIT(A) by the assessee. Though the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] stated that the additional claim can be made by filing a revised return only, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the same will not impinge upon the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claims. Accordingly, we admit the claim of the assessee.
As AR submitted that, by applying the same analogy, the assessee may not be entitled for deduction of loss suffered under this head, but sought an opportunity to explain its stand before AO. Since this issue has not been examined by the AO, we deem it proper to restore it to the file of the AO for examining it afresh. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO.
Disallowance of Community development expenses - As submitted that these expenses were incurred on community development of nearby villages around airport area, which needs to be developed for the purpose of development of Airport business. Accordingly it was claimed that the above said expenditure was allowable u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that this expenditure has been incurred under the head ‘corporate social responsibility’. However, we noticed from the decisions relied on by the assessee to support its claim that the Hon’ble High Court has appreciated the connection between the expenditure and the business use, i.e., those assessees were able to demonstrate the connection between the expenditure incurred and its use for the business of the assessee. In the instant case, though the assessee has furnished details of expenditure, it has not demonstrated the connection between the expenditure and the business advantage to the assessee. Further, as stated earlier, the nature of payment as well as the nature of expenditure incurred by GMR Varalaskhmi Foundation require examination.
In the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to explain its case before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO for examining this issue afresh in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court [2013 (7) TMI 451 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Disallowance of payment made towards delayed deposit of service tax and VAT by treating the same as penalty in nature - HELD THAT:- The issue under consideration is related to interest paid delayed payment of service tax. There is no dispute that the amount paid as service tax is allowable as deduction. Hence the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Commerce and Industries Ltd. [1998 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] will not apply to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, the claim of the assessee gets support from decision rendered in the case of Lakmandas Maturdas [1997 (12) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] and Kaypee Mechanical India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 829 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of interest paid on delayed remittance of service tax and VAT.
Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1953 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - expenses for earning dividend - HELD THAT:- As relying on Maxopp Investment Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] contention of assessee that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made in respect of investment in the shares of the subsidiary for strategic investment, are rejected.
In our opinion, there is no error in the order of the lower authorities in making disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. - Decided against assessee.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1952 - ITAT MUMBAI
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus purchases - assessee’s contention that no notice was issued u/s. 143(2) - HELD THAT:- The assessee did not file fresh return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the assessment was completed without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. See MS. MALVIKA ARUN SOMAIYA [2008 (9) TMI 947 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
In view of the above discussion and the judicial pronouncements hold that in the absence of issue and service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is void ab-initio and is a nullity. Thus, the reassessment order is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1951 - ITAT SURAT
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is undisputed that no notices were issued u/s 133(6) to the two parties from whom the alleged bogus purchases were made and, thus, the Assessing Officer failed to take the enquiry further. Once, the purchases are held to be genuine, no additions can be made. We note that the Ld. CIT (A) has not given any cogent reason for sustaining the disallowance to the tune of 2% except for an observation that it was a possible situation that the assessee could have purchased rough diamonds from a third party in the grey market and had ended up getting bills for purchase from M/s Dharam Impex and M/s Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd. Thus, this sustenance of 2% is based only on assumptions and surmises by the Ld. CIT (A) and there is nothing on record to establish the said observation of the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, in view of the facts of the case, we are unable to concur with the findings of the lower authorities and we deem it fit to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the deletion of the sustenance of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1950 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - default on non issue of notice on correct/new address - AO had the knowledge of change of address and also had known the correct address, but, for the reasons best known to him, the notices were sent to the old address after the period of limitation - AO has resorted to service of notice by affixture at the old address after notice u/s.148 of the Act was returned unserved on the assessee - HELD THAT:- The issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is a question of jurisdiction and not a procedural aspect. By issuing a valid notice within the prescribed time limit, only the Assessing Officer gets the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment. In the cases before us, the notices u/s.148 of the Act, though were issued on the last day of the relevant assessment year, were never served on the assessee.
Even after the assessee have brought to the notice of Assessing Officer that the notices have not been served on them, no steps have been taken by the Department to rectify the said defect. Therefore,we hold that the notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid and consequently, the assessments are also invalid. The reliance of the CIT (A) on the provisions of section 292B is also not sustainable, because the defect is not a procedural defect but is a jurisdictional one. In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1948 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - undisclosed capital gain - DIT(Investigation) received an information that the assessee had sold a land - revised capital gain filed in response to 148 notice - HELD THAT:- AO has not referred any information which has goad him to form a belief that the income has escaped the assessment. He has just narrated details of transaction and thereafter observed that the assessee shown a capital gain which in his assumption far less on such transaction. In order to eliminate his apprehension or suspicion, he reopened the assessment. But he is not authorized to reopen on such assumption. He has to form his concrete opinion demonstrating the escapement of income. Had he visualized the return filed by the assessee, probably he would not have formed the opinion. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is not in accordance with law, and we quash the reassessment.
Capital gain computation - FMV determination - We find that the assessee has calculated long term capital by taking cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 on the basis of registered valuer’s report. In the case of CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan, Indl [2014 (2) TMI 78 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has observed that if value declared by an assessee as on 1.4.1981 is more than the fair market value assumed by the AO for making a reference to the DVO, then he cannot make a reference under section 55A.
In the present case, with help of DVO’s report, the ld.AO wants to reduce the cost of acquisition which he cannot do. The second aspect which probably may arise is that section 55A has been amended w.e.f. 1.7.2012 and the assessment proceedings was in seisin when this amendment came. Report of the DVO was of July 17, 2016. Therefore, its cognizance can be taken, but this aspect has also been considered in the case of Shri Babulal S. Solanki [2019 (6) TMI 1680 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it has been held that this aspect is applicable on the transaction which has taken place after 1.7.2012. In the present case, the assessee has transferred his land on 8.7.2011.
Since the assessee has transferred his land prior to 1.7.2012, even the amended proviso is not applicable on merit also. Addition by reducing the cost of acquisition on the basis of DVO’s report cannot be made. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the re-assessment order.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1945 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - Scope of amended / substituted Rule 8D - CIT(A) in directing AO to make the disallowance u/s 14A @ 1% of the average value of investment as per the amended / substituted Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules as against the claim of the assessee that no disallowance in this case is attracted u/s 14A of the Act except the amount suo motu disallowed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts including that of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ‘Bright Enterprises Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 342 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and also with the decision of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd [2015 (11) TMI 1314 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, it has been held that if assessee has own funds / interest free funds available with it to make investment, the presumption will be that investment made by the assessee is out of own funds. The issue is also squarely covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the above, no disallowance out of interest expenditure is warranted u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act.
Application of the substituted provisions of Rule 8D w.e.f. 6.2.2016 by the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., [2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, it has been held that the amended rule 8D of the I.T. Rules is applicable prospectively.
Administrative expenditure incurred for making the investment - HELD THAT:- As we find that assessee during the year had made investment in four companies. The rest of the investments were old investments. There is no churning of the portfolios or to say repetitive investments. The assessee suo motu has disallowed a sum of Rs. 1 lacs in this respect. The Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction that how the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 1 lac made by the assessee on account of administrative expenditure was not justified or correct vis-a-vis the accounts of the assessee and the investment made. In view of this, we do not find any justification on the part of the Assessing Officer in enhancing the suo motu disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue.
We restrict the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in this case to the extent of suo motu disallowance made by the assessee of Rs. one lac.
Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1943 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment against a non-existing entity - Amalgamation scheme Conceived - HELD THAT:- As informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. It has been held that the basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Hon'ble Supreme Court Maruti Suzuki India Limited [2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] also observed that participation in the proceedings by the assessee in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. It was also held that this position holds the field in view of their judgment in the case of Spice Enotainment delivered on 02.11.2017.
In the case on hand it is undoubtedly the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer on SIPSPL the amalgamating company which was amalgamated with STSPL w.e.f 01.10.2011 and accordingly ceased to exist thereafter. Therefore, when the assessment was made on an non existing entity the said assessment is void ab-initio and nullity in the eye of law. Assessment framed against a non-existing entity goes to the root of the matter and it is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect and there cannot be any assessment against a non-existing entity or a dead person. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the name of the amalgamating company i.e. SIPSPL dated 24.01.2014 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act for the A.Y.2009-10 is void ab-initio and bad in law. Hence the assessment order is a nullity in the eye of law and the same is quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1941 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Assessment of trust - Carry forward of excess expenses over next years - benefit of the deficit for earlier years against the income of subsequent year - whether the trust has incurred deficit due to excess spending on the object of the trust during the particular year and whether excess expenditure incurred in earlier years or in the current year by the trust could be allowed to be set off against the income of subsequent year by invoking Section 11? - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shri Plot Shwetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal [1993 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has rendered decision favourable to the assessee on the very issue. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that there is nothing in the language of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act to indicate that the income from trust property should have been applied for charitable or religious trusts only in the year in which such income has arisen.
The expenditure incurred in an earlier year can be met out of the income of the subsequent year and utilization of such income for meeting the expenditure of the earlier year would amount to such income being applied for charitable or religious trusts -income derived from Trust property has to be computed on commercial principles and consequently deficit arising out of expenditure over income for the previous year should, therefore, be set off against surplus of income over expenditure relating to the subsequent year. Similar view has been expressed in CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation [1986 (7) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Matriseva Trust [1999 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Whatever little controversy might be existing has been put to rest by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Exemption) vs. Subros Education Society [2018 (4) TMI 1622 - SC ORDER]. Hence, the CIT(A) in our view has correctly applied the law as evolved by the judicial precedents. In the absence of any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), we decline to interfere therewith. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1940 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - exercise of jurisdiction by correct AO - AO not issuing the notice u/s 143(2) which is mandatory for completing the assessment under the provisions of Act - HELD THAT:- Since the notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee, the assessee did not have the opportunity to object to the same before the AO and therefore, has raised it before the CIT (A) for the first time. Since, the exercise of jurisdiction is a legal issue and if it is not exercised by the right person, the assessment is liable to be set aside, and on going through the assessment order before us, we find that the CIT (A) had not adjudicated the issue, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A), with a direction to verify whether the AO who has completed the assessment had jurisdiction over the assessee. The CIT (A) shall decide the issue in accordance with law and also after taking into consideration the judicial precedents on the issue after affording the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing and if it is found that the AO had no jurisdiction over the assessee, the assessment shall be declared as null and void. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1939 - ITAT MUMBAI
Sales tax subsidy - Nature of receipt - revenue or capital receipt - CIT-A held scheme of sales tax subsidy granted to the assessee to be for setting up of or for expanding existing industries in the developing region of Maharashtra - HELD THAT:- The main objective of the scheme was to intensify and accelerate the process of dispersal of industries from developed areas and for development of under-developed regions of Maharashtra. It is clear from the scheme that IPS incentive was granted not for carrying on day-to-day business of the unit more profitably but to provide impetus to the process of dispersal of industries to backward areas. The plant of the assessee falls in Group C, which also includes Khed, which is outside the Pune Metropolitan Region. In the present case the sales tax payment is only an yardstick to determine the quantum of incentive and cannot be construed as to mitigate the operational cost of the business.
In view of the above factual scenario we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Facts being identical and the grounds of appeal being same, our decision for AY 2011-12 applies mutatis mutandis to AY 2012-13.
Corporate social responsibility expenses - allowable business expenses u/s 37(1) - expenses as explained by the assessee before the AO were mainly related to expenses incurred on construction of school building, devasthan/temple, drainage, barbed wire fencing, education schemes and distribution of clothes etc. voluntarily - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed u/s 37(1) the expenses claimed by the assessee. Moreover, the decision in Jindal Power Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR] is applicable to the instant case. Accordingly, we dismiss the above grounds of appeal.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1934 - ITAT SURAT
Disallowance of payments of PF/ESIC paid beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant statutes - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that section 43B does not apply to employees contribution. Only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable and therefore, employees contribution is disallowed if not paid within due dates prescribed under relevant Provident Fund /ESI Act. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no mistake in the orders of lower authorities in making disallowance in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the above case (supra).
However, since the SLP has been admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of Hon'ble High Court therefore, we set aside this matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction that the matter be decide as per outcome of SLP, as and when matter will be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1933 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Computation of book profit and MAT - only grievance of the Revenue was against the direction given by the CIT(A) to the AO to compute the MAT tax payable by the assessee, after verifying the claim of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Considering the pleadings made by the Revenue, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) giving aforestated direction and at the same time, we also direct the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue himself after calling for a Remand Report on the facts of the issue from the A.O.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1932 - ITAT PUNE
Validity of order passed u/s 201 and 201(1A) - period of limitation - Time limits of appeals for the assessment year 2009-10 - Filing of quarterly statement is in the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- Considering the date of filing of the statements of TDS for 4 quarter of the year, the financial year involved is F.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. In that case, the due date for passing of order under sub-section (3)(i) of section 201 of the Act is 2 years from the end of the financial year 2009-10 or 2011-12, as the case may be. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time to pass an order for such appeals till 31st March, 2012 and 31st March, 2014, as the case may be.
Whereas in these 3 appeals, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act only 30th March, 2016, 29th March, 2016 and 29th March, 2016 for the appeals respectively. From this point of interpretation of the Statute, we are of the opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Officer in these 3 appeals are without valid jurisdiction. The orders stand barred by limitation in these cases. Accordingly, the legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed.
Time limits of appeals for the A.Y. 2010-11 - Filing of quarterly statement is in the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 - There are 11 appeals in this group and they relates to the assessment year 2010-11. In this bunch of 11 appeals, the financial year in which the TDS statements are filed, covers the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Considering the fact, the last quarter of the statement is filed in the financial year 2010-11, the time limits available to the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 3(i) of section 201 of the Act is two years from the end of the said financial year 2010-11. Thus, in that case, the Assessing Officer is under obligation to pass an order in these circumstances by 31st March, 2013.
Whereas the Assessing Officer passed the order in these 11 appeals in the year 2016 and 2017 respectively i.e. subsequent to the due date specified in the Act.
From this point of view and the interpretation of the Statute, the orders passed by the Assessing Officer are without any valid jurisdiction. Accordingly, the said relevant legal issue raised by the assessee in all the 11 appeals are allowed.
Time limits for passing the order in respect of assessment year 2009-10 (2 appeals) of 11 group of cases where quarterly statements of TDS are not furnished for all the 4 quarters of the financial year - As for this bunch of two appeals pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, the last due date for passing the order u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act is 31st March, 2013. In both the appeals, the order passed by the Assessing Officer on 29.03.2016 commonly i.e. subsequent to the said due date. Accordingly, this bunch of two appeals relating to assessment year 2009-10 has to be allowed on technical ground.
Time limits for passing the order in respect of assessment year 2010-11 (9 appeals) of 11 group of cases where quarterly statements of TDS are not furnished for all the 4 quarters of the financial year - Considering the fact, the last quarter of the statement is filed in the financial year 2011-12, the time limits available to the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 3(i) of section 201 of the Act is two years from the end of the financial year 2011-12 i.e. 31st March, 2014. Assessing Officer passed orders in this bunch of 9 appeals in the month of 2016 and in the month of 2017 i.e. subsequent to the expiry of the said due date. In any case, these orders were not passed before March, 2014.
Considering the above referred interpretation of the Statute as well as the facts available on record, we are of the opinion, the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sub-section 3(i) of section 201 of the Act is without any valid jurisdiction.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1931 - ITAT BANGALORE
Rectification o mistake - Short payment of appeal fees - HELD THAT:- For the speedy disposal of appeal, the case was posted preponed to 5.7.2019 and Notice was issued on 14.6.2019 by RPAD and acknowledgement of RPAD is placed on record that the Notice has been received on 24.6.2019. But an adjournment letter dt.13.7.2019 was sent by post to the Asst.Registrar, Bangalore and was received by the office on 15.7.2019 at 2.15 P.M (letter placed on record). None appeared at the time of hearing, from the file record it was found that the assessee has not rectified the defect of short payment of appeal fees of Rs.9,500 and balance payment is outstanding payable. We considering the action of the assessee in not rectifying the defect and non- compliance of the directions of the ITAT, Registry, dismiss the appeal of assessee.
Disallowance of deductions claimed under Section 57 - HELD THAT:- Departmental Representative has emphasizing that the CIT (Appeals) has erred in restricting the deduction to Rs.24,65,753 whereas the Assessing Officer has made disallowance in the assessment order of Rs.95,73,377. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of Assessing Officer, we find that the learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the observations of the CIT (Appeals) with new evidence or cogent material except relying on the order of the Assessing Officer. We find that the CIT (Appeals) has considered the facts and taken a reasonable view which we are not inclined to interfere and uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue.
........
|
