|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1783 Records
-
2005 (12) TMI 224 - ITAT DELHI-F
For Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... unt in respect of which penalty is exigible is Rs. 1,48,504 as far as M/s. S.U. Book Binding House is concerned (Rs. 1,75,750 - Rs. 27,246). Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is to be computed with reference to Rs. 1,48,504 and Rs. 1,87,318 and not on Rs. 4,50,679. In the light of above discussion, I agree with the learned Judicial Member that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is exigible but the same is to be calculated with reference to sum of Rs. 3,35,822 (Rs. 1,48,504 1,87,318) and not Rs. 4,50,679, as suggested by the learned Judicial Member in the proposed order. No penalty is imposable with reference to Rs. 87,611 shown as payable to M/s. G.K. Fine Art Press. There is no justification to delete and cancel the entire order. The appeal of the revenue, to the above extent, is required to be accepted. I answer the question referred to me as above. 40. The Registry is directed to place the file before the regular Bench for passing an order, as per majority opinion.
-
2005 (12) TMI 223 - ITAT DELHI-E
Failure To Deduct Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... n under ESOS are perquisites under s. 17(2)(iiia) only from asst. yr. 2001-02. Since the financial years under consideration before us are financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, we hold that no benefits had accrued to the employees on account of participation in the scheme of ESOS. Accordingly, we hold that no tax was to be deducted at source in the financial years under consideration. Therefore, we agree with the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the question of levy of penalty under s. 271C does not arise. In view of the above, we uphold the orders of the learned CIT(A) to cancel the penalties of Rs. 22,90,050 for financial year 1998-99 and of Rs. 13,38,683 for financial year 1999-2000 for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and not for the reasons as mentioned by the learned CIT(A). 8. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Department for both the assessment years are rejected. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 222 - ITAT DELHI-E
Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... and unintentional non-compliance of not enclosing a duly signed copy of the tax audit report along with the return. In that case, it is not justified to levy penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under s. 271B of the Act. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the AO by setting aside the orders of the authorities below with a direction that the AO shall not impose the penalty under s. 271B of the Act if the assessee had filed duly signed copy of the tax audit report during the course of assessment proceedings when it was brought to the notice of the assessee and incase the assessee had not filed the duly signed copy of the tax audit report during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO will be justified to levy the penalty under s. 271B of the Act. Therefore, the ground of appeal taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions.
-
2005 (12) TMI 221 - ITAT DELHI-C
Deduction u/s 80HHC in respect of interest income - Interest income from fixed deposit receipts placed as margin money with the bank for the purpose of availing various credit facilities - Taxability of interest income under the head "Income from other sources" or 'business' - HELD THAT:- The source of the interest no doubt continues to be the fixed deposit, but since the fixed deposit, which was either to be treated as pure investment, became converted into an asset utilization for the purpose of the business, which became a commercial asset, and therefore, the interest became taxable as 'business income'. It would be too simplistic a view, to tell that even after the conversion of the fixed deposit (investment) into a commercial asset which was put to use for the purpose of facilitating the assessee's business, the source of the interest still continues to be the investment and not the commercial asset. The characteristic of the asset had changed and the change cannot be ignored while examining the nature of the interest income. We, therefore, hold that the interest income is liable to be assessed as 'business income'.
In the result, the grounds are allowed.
Deduction u/s. 80HHC in respect of DEPB and DFRC - The DEPB is issued as an optional facility for exporters who do not wish to go through the licensing route. The objects of the DEPB scheme 'is to neutralize incidence of customs duty on the import content of the export product. The neutralization shall be provided by way of grant of duty credit, against the export product'. The credit is given as a percentage of the FOB value of exports made in freely convertible currency. The credit is available against export products and at such rates as may be specified by way of public notice, for import of raw material, intermediates, components, etc. The DEPB is freely transferable subject to the condition that it shall be for import at the port specified by the DEPB, which shall be the port from where exports have been made.
The conditions of issue of DFRC and DEPB show that the immediate source of these two receipts is the actual exports of goods out of the country. No person other than an exporter would be eligible for these two receipts. The immediate source of DEPB and DFRC is, therefore, the exports made by the assessee and in that view of the matter, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. CIT [1997 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT], is also fully satisfied in the sense that the immediate source of the DEPB and DFRC is the exports made by the assessee.
Thus, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80HHC in respect of DEPB and DFRC. The ground is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 220 - ITAT DELHI-B
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... antiated its explanation by any evidence. It may be that no time-share was availed of by any person during the previous year on account of the facility having been acquired for the first time during this year. Still the assessee could prove this contention by furnishing the particulars of utilizing this premises in succeeding years. No such material has been relied upon. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee has remained unsubstantiated. We are, therefore, of the view that the nature of the assessee s expenditure is required to be ascertained first. For that purpose, we restore this issue to the file of the learned AO who shall allow the assessee reasonable opportunity to substantiate its explanation and thereafter the learned AO shall decide this issue afresh on merits in accordance with law. We may clarify that as no physical asset has been acquired, it cannot be termed as capital expenditure. 7. For statistical purposes, this appeal shall be treated as partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 219 - ITAT DELHI-B
Recording Of Satisfaction By Ao ... ... ... ... ..... served that the apex Court in the case of Angidi Chettiar, had emphasized that satisfaction is not to be in the mind of AO, but must be reflected from the order itself. This shows that judgment of Supreme Court was duly considered and applied in various judgments. Consequently, neither the judgment of jurisdictional High Court can be said to be per incuriam nor in conflict with judgment of apex Court. In our view, the order of the Tribunal in the case of Saroop Lal Ad1akha is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. From the facts of the present case, it would be clear that in the instant case, penalty proceedings were not validly initiated and consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was invalid. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue and allow the cross-objection of the assessee. 8. No other point was raised or argued before us. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross-objection of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 218 - ITAT DELHI-A
Rent-free Accommodation ... ... ... ... ..... Member for his opinion. Hon ble Third Member has made his order on25th Oct., 2005and now the matter has been placed before us for disposal of the assessee s appeal in accordance with the majority opinion. Accordingly, we decide the assessee s appeal in the following manner 2. In relation to ground of appeal No. 1(b), we hold that the deduction on account of housing norm and auto norm made by the employer from the base pay of the assessee in lieu of pre-housing and transport facility provided in India is, in fact, a reduction in the pay and, therefore, not liable to tax in India. 3. In relation to ground of appeal No. 1(e) we hold that the profit/benefit derived by the assessee on account of stock option granted to the assessee in terms of his employment is liable to tax as perquisite under s. 17(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. All other grounds of appeal are decided as per the order of Hon ble JM, Shri S.K. Yadav. 5. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 217 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B
Deduction of TDS u/s 194J - Payment of port charges, access charges and interconnect charges to BSNL - HELD THAT:- In our considered view, the situation in the case of the assessee is not different from the situation before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Skycell Communications [2001 (2) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. In the case before Hon'ble Madras High Court, the question was whether firms and companies subscribing to the cellular network are required to make TDS u/s 194J or not and whether the service provided by the cellular mobile telephone companies to its subscriber was technical services or not, and the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that it cannot be treated as fee for technical services.
In the case before us, the assessee is providing service to its subscribers and certain calls are routed by making use of the network of BSNL and for that purpose, the call charges received by the assessee from its subscribers are shared with BSNL. In our view, the said service cannot be treated as technical service and the provisions of s. 194J are not applicable. The orders of the lower authorities are vacated. Since, we have held that the provisions of s. 194J are not applicable, we do not see any reason to deal with the alternative plea of the assessee.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 216 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... disclosed the receipt as a revenue receipt. The dispute was as to whether the subsidy received was to be treated as income derived from the industrial undertaking. ITAT, Chandigarh Bench held in favour of the assessee by holding that the transport subsidy was the business income of the industrial undertaking. However, ITAT, Delhi Bench (Third Member) though noted the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench yet differed with the view arrived at by ITAT, Chandigarh Bench. Both these decisions are not of any help to decide the issue involved in the present appeal before us insofar as the transport subsidy was disclosed as revenue receipt in both the cases by the respective assessees. 23. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, I/we hold that the CIT(A) was not justified to hold that the transport subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt. The order of the CIT(A) in this regard is set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.
-
2005 (12) TMI 215 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
Income Of Co-operative Societies ... ... ... ... ..... incidental to the carrying on of the business of the assessee of advancing credit facilities to its members. Similarly, interest on NPA is nothing but interest received from members though not regularly. It has been pointed out earlier that the assessee has reflected interest from members under two categories-one is interest regularly received from members and another category is of interest from defaulting members who are not regular in repayments. The latter type of interest is shown as interest on non-performing assets. Scrutiny fee also received from member in connection with loans to be advanced to them and, therefore, is incidental to the business of the assessee of providing credit facilities to the members. 12. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The same is accordingly, upheld and the appeal of the revenue dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 214 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... by the assessee are not allowable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession or the assessee has not incurred such expenses or the expenses claimed by the assessee are fictitious or the similar expenses have been allowed under the head Income from house property or the Assessing Officer has made no enquiry or the view taken by the Assessing Officer in allowing such expenses is not a possible view permissible under the law, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT has erred in holding that once the deduction under section 24 of the Income-tax Act is fully allowed to the assessee-company from rental income, the extra expenses for repairs and maintenance, etc., are not allowable and in setting aside the issue for limited purpose to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT is directed to be cancelled. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 213 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject-matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken. 10. On a total consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case along with the case record and the case laws cited with reference to the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1988-89, in our considered opinion, the contention and argument of the Ld. Sr. Counsel on behalf of the assessee-appellant cannot be accepted for the reasons stated above. Hence appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the assessee s appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 212 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Deduction u/s 80IB - Profits derived from Unit-I i.e., the NH coke unit - Goods exports to sister concern - 'market value' - Whether, taking into consideration the fact that the impugned goods are import substitute and no other unit manufactures NH coke in India, the landed cost (import value) thereof would be indicative of the market value in terms of the Explanation appended to s. 80-IA(8) for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB - HELD THAT:- The price at which it actually exported goods to MCCP can in no way be termed as indicative 'market value' in terms of the Explanation to s. 80-IA(8). The price at which the goods were actually exported to MCCP was dictated/imposed by the latter. It is not the price which the impugned product would ordinarily fetch on sale in the 'open market' between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The impugned export transactions were not effected under conditions enabling every person desirous of purchasing the goods to place orders with the manufacturing unit and obtain supplies. As such, the impugned export did not constitute open market transaction.
We find that the assessee's claim u/s 80-I was allowed by the Department upto financial year 1998-99 i.e., relevant to the asst. yr. 1999-2000. The assessee had entered into a technical collaboration with the Government for getting approval. As a result of this collaboration, the assessee had to export NH coke in order to pay dividends. The export was made to the company from whom technical collaboration was made. As a result thereof, the assessee-company earned profits whereas previously they had incurred losses. We are of the view that whatever was done by the assessee was based on commercial expediency subject to the Government regulation. We also agree with the view of the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the open market price would be that price the assessee could obtain NH coke in the open market. We also note that the Revenue has accepted the orders of the learned CIT(A) and did not come to the Tribunal, when similar matters were decided upon in earlier years. After considering all the circumstances and the principles of consistency, we decide the appeal in favour of the assessee on the first ground. The AO is directed to, allow the assessee's claim under s. 80-IB. The order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed on the first ground.
The assessee has also raised the second ground against the order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming a disallowance made by the AO.
We find no merit in this ground of assessee's appeal. The order of the learned CIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal of the assessee on the second ground is dismissed. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 211 - ITAT BOMBAY-H
Diversion Of ... ... ... ... ..... d to the cases relied upon by the ld. CIT DR. In the leading case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd, the Supreme Court has categorically held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible under law and it has resulted into loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable under law. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the issue already stands decided in the other quantum appeal referred to above, the order of the ld. CIT which is under appeal is hereby quashed. 22. In the result, while assessee s appeal in ITA No. 1314 is partly allowed, appeal in ITA No. 4961 is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 210 - ITAT BOMBAY-H
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... y allowed the plea of assessee on the ground that units at Kurla and Ankleshwar were part of the independent business carried on under the single management and there was complete interconnection, interlacing and interdependency of the activities carried out at these two units. It is not clear on what basis this finding was given by the Learned CIT (Appeals). On the contrary, the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the judgment relied upon by the Assessing Officer, has held that shifting expenses of plant and machineries to a better place was capital expenditure in the same manner as it was for acquisition for plant and machineries. Considering the circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) and refer the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication after ascertaining the correct facts and the case law referred to. The assessee shall also be given an opportunity of being heard. 44. In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2005 (12) TMI 209 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Disallowance of salary of partners - In the partnership deed did not specify the names of working partners and also had not specified salary payable to each working partner - salary paid to partners not in accordance with the terms of partnership deed - HELD THAT:- In my humble view, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied on this ground that since remunerations were paid to only four of the five partners, such payment could not be considered in accordance with the partnership deed. It is to be noted that section 40(b) is to be considered only when the assessee claims deduction for the payment of salary to the partners. In case, no payment is made to one of the partners, the same would not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction in respect of the remaining 4 working partners. For example, if partnership deed mentioned the names of 3 working partners entitled to remuneration, but remunerations are paid to 4 partners and the assessee claimed deduction in respect of remuneration paid to 4 working partners, the deduction shall not be allowed only in respect of remuneration paid to one of the four partners because the same was not authorized and was in accordance with the terms of partnership deed.
However, deduction in respect of salary paid to remaining 3 partners which was authorized and was in accordance with the terms of partnership deed cannot be denied because nowhere section 40(b) lays down that such remunerations should be paid to all the working partners mentioned in the partnership deed. If the assessee chooses not to make payment to one or two of the working partners as per their mutual agreement and does not claim deduction for the same, Revenue cannot have any objection for the same because section 40(b) shall come into operation only when the deduction is claimed and not otherwise.
Thus, CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of remuneration amount paid to 4 working partners. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction of remuneration. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
Disallowance of interest - borrowed amounts diverted to partners for non-business purpose - The Revenue has not brought any material on record to show that there was increase in the borrowed funds in the assessment year under reference which could be linked with the withdrawals by the partners. In fact, the withdrawals by the partners for the assessment year under reference were lower than the profit and fresh contributions by the partners resulting in reduction in the debit balance in the capital accounts of the partners. Therefore, disallowance of interest for the assessment year under reference would not be justified.
In the case of CIT v. Sri dev Enterprises [1991 (1) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the facts before the Karnataka High Court were that assessee had borrowed funds from 'X' in the earlier year. No disallowance of interest was made in the earlier assessment year. However, subsequently the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest on the same balance, which was brought forward from the earlier assessment year. On these facts, the Karnataka High Court held that consistency and definiteness of approach by the Revenue is necessary and since interest was not disallowed in the earlier year and the balance was brought forward from the earlier year, no disallowance could be made for the subsequent assessment year.
Here also, the facts of the case are the same as for earlier year. In the assessment year under reference, the assessee had not borrowed any fresh loans and no disallowance of interest was made in the earlier assessment years. Therefore, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned disallowance of interest. The order of CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 208 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Addition To Income ... ... ... ... ..... ,39,390 remained in the books of account. In fact, the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs each was credited in the deposit A/c. of M/s. M.K. Sales and Sh. Ajit Pal Singh and this amount remained with the assessee itself. The remaining amount of Rs. 14.39 lakhs also remained in the books. However, the benefit for the same has been allowed while considering the addition of Rs. 20,02,136. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any further benefit on this account. Accordingly, these grounds of the appeal are partly allowed. 19. The last ground of assessee s appeal in ITA No. 242 (ASR)/2003 relates to sustaining of interest charged under section 234B. The Ld. AR submitted that this ground is consequential only. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow consequential relief at the time of giving effect to this order. This ground of appeal is disposed of in these terms. 20. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 207 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... most of the cases have condoned the delay and, therefore, this condition is fully satisfied. In certain other cases, their applications were treated as out of time. This approach in our view is not justified having regard to the fact that change in the statutory provision compelled the assessees to file applications for registration. In the light of above circumstances, we are of the view that delay in the submission of application is liable to be condoned in all cases. In view of the principle of consistency, we do not see any justification on the part of CIT to refuse to condone the delay in some cases and hold otherwise in other cases. The delay in the submission of applications is merely condoned in all cases. After hearing both the parties and after considering their submissions, the delay being small one, we direct the CIT to condone the delay and grant the registration to the assessee w.e.f. 1st April, 2002. . In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 206 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... Corporation held that interest out of borrowings made for the purchase of plant and machinery would not be Taxable in view of the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd but the three-judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Autokast Ltd. has held that such interest would be chargeable to tax as income from other sources. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, we hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in giving relief to the assessee. His order is, accordingly, vacated and that of the Assessing Officer is restored. 12. The assessee made an alternative submission that the expenditure incurred by the assessee to earn the interest income is an allowable deduction. We find force in this contention of the assessee. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee s claim and allow necessary relief to the assessee on that account. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
2005 (12) TMI 205 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... rovert the above submissions made by the learned Authorised Representative. While disposing of the assessee s appeal for the block period we have noted that out of the silver articles found at the business premises valued at Rs. 15,83,470 the silver articles valued at Rs. 15,17,000 was seized by the Revenue. Such silver articles were utilized only for the payment of taxes by the assessee. In fact, in the same assessment year, i.e., for asst. yr. 2001-02 the assessee has claimed the loss on the sale of such silver articles which were sold for the payment of taxes of undisclosed income. When the pawned silver articles have already been sold there is no question of recovery either of principal amount advanced or the interest thereon. In view of above we delete the addition of Rs. 2,67,675 made by the AO for interest deemed to be receivable from the advances in moneylending business. 21. In the result, assessee s appeals are partly allowed while the Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
........
|
