|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 325 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search valuation of plots - No incriminating document or material was found or seized during the search operation in respect of aforesaid two plots purchased by the respondent-assessee. However, the Assessing Officer referred these two plots for valuation under Section 142A of the Act, 1961. - On the basis of the valuation report submitted by the District Valuation Officer (in short "DVO"), the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.19,48,200/- in respondent-assessee's income. ITAT deleted the additions Held that: - , no evidence much less incriminating evidence was found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deeds. In any event, the final fact finding authority, namely, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the instances of the sale taken into account by the Valuation Officer were not comparable as they were situated far away from the location of the plots purchased by the respondent-assessee. revenues appeal dismissed decided in favor of assessee
-
2010 (8) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Loans - addition u/s 68 - department contended that either the books of accounts or principal officers or Directors of those persons who had given credit entries were not produced - Consequently, the creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions were not proved - Held that: - parties are having PAN numbers and assessed under Income tax - assessee also produced confirmation letters - transactions are reflected in the accounts and balance sheets - no addition can be made u/s 68 - order of CIT(A) and ITAT maintained.
-
2010 (8) TMI 60 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Additions on account of unverifiable purchase - unexplained expenses - Held that: - both the CIT(A) and ITAT deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the assessee had purchased raw material and also got the job work done from the same parties in both earlier and subsequent assessment years. The Assessing Officer in the subsequent Assessment Year of 2004-05 has accepted all these parties and transactions as genuine. Moreover, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal have found that payments had been made to these parties through banking channels and tax had been deducted at source on the payments made towards job work charges - order of CIT(A) and ITAT maintained.
-
2010 (8) TMI 59 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit - The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the two persons could not show their creditworthiness and therefore, made additions of Rs. 2,26,592 as unexplained cash credit. Certain other additions were also made, which included unexplained income of Rs. 37,550 and capital gain to the extent of Rs. 35,000 - Held that: - It is clear from the amounts of gifts that these are small amounts given by the relatives - findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse as the cogent and supportive evidence is not looked into or considered. The aforesaid evidence clinches the issue in favour of the assessee, who had duly explained the cash received in the accounts of Mrs. Yojana Garg and Mr. Rajiv Garg from where the payments were made - decided in favor of assessee
-
2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Higher rate of depreciation - computers - printers and scanners - Held that: - computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server etc. form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60%.
-
2010 (8) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of Advance Tax The revised estimates filed by the assessee did not exceed 33 and 1/3rd percent of the over more amount. Therefore it could not be treated as estimate under sub Section 4 of Section 209 A of the Act and thus, the amount of Rs. 5 lacs paid thereupon could not be treated as advance tax paid under Section 207 and 213 of the Act. Additionally the Income Tax officer also opined that since there was two views prevalent as to whether this amount should be treated as advance tax or not, therefore interest was payable thereupon or not, application of Section 164 for rectification was not maintainable and the application dismissed on this ground also. This order has been sustained by the CIT (A) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Held that: - when application under Section 154 of the Act is held to be not maintainable, no purpose would be served by answering the questions raised in the petition decided in favor revenue
-
2010 (8) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application of section 40A(5) Section 40A(5)(a) versus 40A(5)(c) Deduction u/s 80J nature of excess amount collected subject to decision of HC, revenue or capital Depreciation on Building - Held that: - provision of section 40A(5)(c) is applicable and section 40A(5)(a) is not applicable in view of decision of Apex court in CIT Vs. Continental Construction Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 5637 - SUPREME Court) - If the assessee has been allowed the benefit of Section 80J in the last three preceding years, there is no reason to deny the same for the instant assessment year - in those cases where the interim orders are passed permitting the assessee to recover excess amount than the amount fixed by the government for levy sugar without any condition of refund etc., such receipt of these amounts would be treated as revenue receipt. - but excess price charged by the assessee, while the writ petition was still pending, would not be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee company, in as much as, the excess receipt was contingent upon the success in the writ petition filed by the assessee. - part of the structure is also known as building. assessee is entitled to take benefit of initial depreciation
-
2010 (8) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences and Prosecution - Penalty imposed on the assessee for evading of tax. On petition for direction quashing the prosecution on the ground that penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) had been set aside by the Tribunal and in the alternative seeking stay of the trial till completion of proceedings under section 273A(4). Held that - that de hors the orders setting aside the penalty proceedings by the Appellate Tribunal, the criminal proceedings go on. Petition dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT
MAT Minimum alternate tax adjustments to book profit by AO Penalty consequent to such adjustments - penalty proceedings be initiated against the assessee AO confirmed penalty equal to Rs. 90,97,415/- in respect of the additions holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of the income which fell within the purview of the Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and Explanation 1 thereto. Held that: - The income of the assessee was thus assessed under Section 115 JB and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have to see and examine the application of Explanation 4. - No doubt, there was concealment but that had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. The assessment as per the normal procedure was, however, not acted upon. On the contrary, it is the deemed income assessed under Section 115 JB of the Act which has become the basis of assessment as it was higher of the two. Tax is thus paid on the income assessed under Section 115 JB of the Act. Hence, when the computation was made under Section 115 JB of the Act, the aforesaid concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all. Penalty not to be imposed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Loss or speculative loss explanation to section 73 The assessee had pleaded before the AO that the principal business of the assessee was of granting of loans and advances and earning the income therefrom and therefore, the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act would not apply in the case of the assessee. It is in this backdrop that the AO went into the question as to whether the principal business of the assessee was that of lending money and earning the income therefrom. He concluded in the negative, i.e., he held that the principal business of the assessee was not of money lending. The CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr. 2008 -TMI - 5862 - SUPREME Court] concluded that the principal business of the assessee was that of money lending and allowed the adjustment of losses suffered on account of sale/purchase of shares from other business income. ITAT accepted the order of CIT(A) Held that - that assessee's case fails under exception clauses of Explanation to 73. - principal business of the assessee is money lending is based on cogent evidence and material on record, it being a finding of fact and therefore, it cannot be treated as perverse.
-
2010 (8) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Unexplaind cash credit creditworthiness advancing of loans by the Directors / shareholders Held that: - there is no rule of law that any person withdrawing cash from his own a/c about 1 or 2 months back cannot keep the same with them at their residence. The statement of one of the directors was recorded wherein he has stated on oath the purpose for which it was withdrawn and since that purpose could not materialize, the same was again deposited in bank and given to the assessee as loan. Additions made by the AO sustained by the CIT was correctly deleted by the Tribunal
-
2010 (8) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Interest Short payment of Advance Tax Short deduction of TDS by the person making payment - whether interest u/s 234B is mandatory? AO found that there was short payment of taxes inasmuch as the advance tax was not paid by the assessee on due dates and therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had incurred interest liability under Section 234B of the Act. In view of AO it was for the assessee to show income from all the projects, compute the tax and take credit of taxes paid either prepaid or otherwise by enclosing the proof of such payment along with return of income. The TDS certificates were to be collected by the assessee even where taxes are borne by the payer. Since the assessee had not disclosed any certificates nor shown proof of payment of taxes, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 234B of the Act. Held that: held that the assessee was not liable to pay any interest under Section 234B of the Act - judgments of the Uttaranchal and Bombay High Courts in the matters of CIT and Anr. vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. [2008 -TMI - 11559 - UTTARANCHAL High Court] and DIT (International Taxation) vs. NGC Network Asia LLC [2009 TMI - 33839 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed Interest u/s 234D - Tribunal has held that the assessee was not liable to pay the interest under the aforesaid provision which was normally charged from the assessee for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. Held that: - any provision made in a statute for charging or levying interest on delayed payment of tax must be construed as a substantive law and not adjectival law. So construed and applying the normal rule of interpretation of statutes if the Revenue's contention is accepted it leads to conflicts and creates certain anomalies which could never have been intended by the legislature. - therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in deleting the interest under Section 234D of the Act for the period prior to the assessment year 2004-05. As a result, these appeals of the Department are dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Share application money production of evidences Held that: - the approach adopted by CIT(A) and Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [2010 -TMI - 76942 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it has been held that, "2. Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. - Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee under Section 68 of Act, 1961.
-
2010 (8) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT
Settlement commission full and true disclosure by the party first disclosure was ₹ 1.94 crores second disclosure was ₹ 11.41 crores Held that: - It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. - In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. As afore-stated, in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under Section 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form. - the application filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission was not maintainable as the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their undisclosed income were kept open. - the disclosure of ₹ 11.41 crores as additional undisclosed income in the revised annexure, filed on 19th September, 1994 alone was sufficient to establish that the application made by the assessee on 30th September, 1993 under Section 245C(1) of the Act could not be entertained as it did not contain a "true and full" disclosure of their undisclosed income and "the manner" in which such income had been derived. - High Court was correct in making the order of remand and no good ground is made out for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. - The Commissioner will be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹ 50,000/-.
-
2010 (8) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Inflated purchase - Onus to prove proof of purchase - Revenue submitted that the respondent-assessee had over-invoiced its purchases with an intent to inflate its purchases and reduce its profits. Held that: - It is settled law that in revenue matters, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet when it files purchase bills and affidavits, the onus shifts to the Revenue. One must not forget that it is Revenue which has powers regarding discovery, inspection, production and calling for evidence as well as survey, search, seizure and requisition of books of accounts. - The difference in purchase rate has been arrived at by the learned CIT(A) is merely 1.5%. This in our opinion is not significant enough to warrant any addition based on surmises. The learned CIT(A) has himself observed that provision of section 40A(2) are not attracted in this case. It is also an admitted fact that assessee has made the profit on those purchase. It is also not the case that there is decline in the gross profit rate as compared the previous year. No case has also been made out that the profit earned on these purchase was not up the mark. Under the circumstances, in our opinion the addition on account of substitution of purchase price by the revenue is not justified.
-
2010 (8) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Best judgment assessment estimation of income reasonable basis Held that: - Undoubtedly, the AO has the power to frame an assessment under Section 144 of Act, 1961, but while doing so, he must make an honest and fair estimate of the income of an assessee by following rules of natural justice, equity and good conscience. The AOs best judgment and order should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances of the case. While passing the best judgment and order, AO should have collected the material by exercising his quasi-judicial powers. However, as found by the CIT(A), the AO has not given any reasons for determining the respondent-assessees income at Rs. 25,00,000/-. Consequently, the said finding of the AO is unsustainable. matter remanded back
-
2010 (8) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation effective ownership - assessee has set up a power plant in the premises of NTPC for its own captive consumption. Since the expenditure for creating some facilities such as coal handling, water treatment etc. was very substantial, assessee decided to use NTPC facilities for these purposes. Rs. 22.62 crores was paid by the respondent-assessee to the NTPC for this and capitalized in its books, on which depreciation was claimed. - The Assessing Officer observed that since the effective ownership and control belonged to NTPC, depreciation could not be allowed to the assessee Held that: - we are of the view that as the Captive Power Plan is not owned by the respondent-assessee, no fixed capital of enduring nature has come into existence. It is pertinent to mention that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Moreover, as pointed out by the CIT(A), had the respondent-assessee not incurred the expenditure in question, it would have to pay for use of the facilities and such payment would have been allowed as revenue expenditure. In the present case, the advantage consists in facilitating the assessees business and trading operations leaving the fixed capital untouched. Consequently, in our view, the expenditure will be on revenue account even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future - though the expenditure had been loosely termed as depreciation it was revenue expenditure which was allowed every year at the rates on which depreciation had been allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit Share application money filing of appeal in routine matter appeal against for the matter which has been decided earlier Held that: - the findings of the CIT(A) as extracted hereinabove are sufficient to show that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified. The reasoning and conclusions arrived at concurrently by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal suffer from no perversity and are consistent with the law - It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court - Though we were initially inclined to impose costs yet we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by giving a direction to the Revenue to be more careful before filing appeals in a routine manner. In our view, appeal should not be filed in matters where either no question of law arises or the issue of law is a settled one. We give this direction because the judicial capital in terms of manpower and resources is extremely limited
-
2010 (8) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Genuineness of transaction unexplained share capital - ample evidence was led by the assessee to prove the identity and genuineness of the share applicants. Held that: - , the identity of the creditors is known and hence the Assessing Officer can proceed against such creditors in accordance with law decided in favor of assessee
-
2010 (8) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital versus revenue expenditure - consultancy charges paid to various authorities for obtaining study reports in Bitumen - an enduring advantage Held that: - the consultancy expenditure in the present case amounted to revenue expenditure, as by virtue of the consultancy the respondent-assessee had neither acquired an income earning asset nor did it obtain any enduring advantage. Moreover, the aforesaid expenses are clearly relatable to the business of the respondent-assessee.
....
|
