|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 185 Records
-
2006 (3) TMI 789
... ...
... ... ..... arnishee proceedings, the 2nd respondent filed a memo stating that the amount was already attached by the 1st respondent by an order dated 5.1.2001. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated 5.1.2001, the above writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 36. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. I have also perused the records filed in this W.P.No.25609/2001. 37. This Writ Petition No. 25609/2001 has to be dismissed on the ground that in the Writ Petition No. 24857/2001 filed by the 2nd respondent herein challenging the very same impugned order dated 5.1.2001, I have taken the decision that there is no infirmity nor illegality in the said impugned order and consequently dismissed the same. 38. In view of the above fact, Writ Petition No. 25609/2001 is also dismissed. 39. In the result, both W.P.Nos.24857 and 25609 of 2001 are dismissed. No costs. Connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... Sr. Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant. In our opinion, no question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 753
... ...
... ... ..... order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 11. In C.O. No. 18/Chandi/99 which is arising out of the departmental appeal in ITA No. 38/Chandi/99 the assessee had merely supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and since we have dismissed the appeal of the department, the C.O. of the assessee in support of the order of ld. CIT(A) becomes infructuous so the same deserves to be dismissed as infructuous. We order accordingly. 12. The facts of ITA No 37/Chandi/99 and C.O. No. 17/Chandi/99 are identical to the facts involved in the case of Avinash Chander i.e. ITA No. 38/Chandi/99 and C.O. 18/Chandi/99 and even the rival contentions were also similar, so, our findings given in the case of Shri Avinash Chander in ITA No. 38/Chandi/99 and C.O. 18/Chandi/99 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar in ITA No. 37/Chandi/99 and C.O. 17/Chandi/99. 13. In the result, appeals of the department as well as the COs of the assessees are dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 747
... ...
... ... ..... or the assessee submitted that this issue is also linked with other appeals which have been restored to the file of the CIT(A). Therefore, these appeals may also be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh along with other appeals. 15. I have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions. This issue is also linked with the quantum appeal and the appeals relating to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) which have been restored to the file of the CIT(A). Therefore, I consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restore these two appeals also to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity to both the parties along with other two appeals. The respective grounds of appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (3) TMI 689
... ...
... ... ..... ay, auspicious day and inauspicious day. Both the authorities below also found that there was no omission established by the Revenue. Mere one day sales could not be attributed to estimate the whole year without considering the festival season, rainy season and other natural calamities. It is also seen that the first Appellate Authority as well as the second Appellate Authority had considered all the relevant materials and came to the correct conclusion. The Assessing Officer had only relied on the one day sale for making estimation. The Tribunal is correct in holding that the Assessing Officer was wrong in estimating the additions which was solely based on one day sales. We are of the firm view that the Assessing Officer cannot make estimate based on one day sales. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and hence no question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Accordingly the tax case is dismissed. No costs.
-
2006 (3) TMI 678
Assessment - Prima facie adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... ions of the assessees and if that is done in the true spirit, no assessee will be in a position to charge the revenue with administering the provisions of the Act with lsquo an evil eye and unequal hand rsquo . If we consider the facts of the case under consideration in the light of above observation of the Apex Court, we find that mistake in the instant case in computation of total income is unknowingly natural human/pardonable mistake. Such mistakes are not usual or adjustments provided under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143, therefore the question of levy of additional tax under section 143(1A) does not arise. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the additional tax under section 143(1A) is not warranted on correcting such mistakes for calculating correct assessable income of the assessee. We, accordingly, find that the CIT(A) has rightly cancelled the additional tax. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 677
Business expenditure, Method of accounting in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... ount of Excise Duty payable on sales but because of Modvat available to the assessee on account of opening stock, purchases and closing stock and since the Modvat element is added to the value of opening stock and purchases as provided in section 145A, the actual deduction allowable to the assessee on account of Excise Duty with regard to sales should be restricted to actual duty paid by assessee by excluding the Modvat element with regard to both opening stock and purchases during the year to ensure that the assessee does not get any double deduction on account of Modvat in the year of insertion of section 145A of the Act i.e. assessment year 1999-2000. The learned CIT should examine this issue and to ensure that no double deduction to be granted to the assessee on account of Modvat by including the same in opening stock and purchases and also in Excise duty payable against sales. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (3) TMI 676
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... he second show cause notice. This inconclusive finding itself is a clear indication to show that the Commissioner was proposing an alternative line of thought without taking the proposition to a logical conclusion. It is to be seen, therefore, that the observation/opinion reflected in the show-cause notices issued by the Commissioner was inclusive. 31. From the above observation we find that on the merit of the case also the Commissioner was not successful in controverting the claim of the assessee-company that the payments were received against goodwill. Accordingly, we find that the second limb of the finding of the Commissioner is also unfounded. 32. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the findings of the Commissioner that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is without any basis. Accordingly, the revision order passed by the Commissioner is quashed. 33. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 675
Business loss/deductions ... ... ... ... ..... try was passed by it to adjust Rs. 4,00,000 in its books of account. So far as assessee is concerned, it is a consideration for obtaining NOC from the society. Section 48(1)(i) reads as under 48. The income chargeable under the head lsquo Capital gains rsquo shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely (i)expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer That is claim of the deduction under section 48 depends on what is the nature of the transaction between assessee and the society and not in what manner the society finally adjusted the sum in its books of account. As a result, we consider this sum as a necessary expenditure for transfer of flat and therefore, allowable under section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 674
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... reads as follows mdash Block of assets Depreciation allowance as percentage of written down value 1 2 I.Buildings ... ... ... (4)Purely temporary erections such as wooden structures.... 100 At best, it is only an illustration of the term purely temporary erections . Nowhere in this class of assets it is mentioned that a purely temporary erection should not be made of cement or brick. Viewed from the point of ownership of the land, the function of such structures and their utility, and also keeping in mind the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 243 ITR 83 , it is difficult to accept the view of the learned CIT that the order passed by the Assessing Officer suffers from an error and it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Under these circumstances, we allow the appeal of the assessee and cancel the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 673
Unexplained investments ... ... ... ... ..... that it is not enough to find out that there was investment not explained and it has to be examined whether such assessee could have earned any income which was not disclosed to the department. In that case, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decided that the assessee was not having any possibility to have earned any income outside the books of account and, therefore, observed that addition under section 69 cannot be made. The case of the assessee is on all fours with the facts of the case decided by the Apex Court. The assessee has no source of income of its own. Therefore, section 69 has no application to the case of the AOP even based on the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that the amount is assessable in the hands of the AOP is not correct. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. 15. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 672
... ...
... ... ..... in excess of Rs. 5 lakhs from his employer. The assessee rsquo s claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal allowed the assessee rsquo s claim for relief under section 89(1). On appeal, the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under lsquo The assessee, employee of the respondent bank was not only entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 10(10C) of the act to the extent prescribed in the provision itself, but for any amount over and above the prescribed limit under the aforesaid provision, the assessee was also entitled to relief under section 89(1) of the Act read with Rule 21A. rsquo 18. While deciding the issue in favour the assessee, the Hon rsquo ble High Court had taken note of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in J. Visalakshi rsquo s case (supra). In view of the above, all the appeals by the revenue fail and are dismissed. 19. In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 671
... ...
... ... ..... on with the person to whom he has given the money. Merely because the assessee has given the money to the daughter and grand daughters of Shri Ramachandra Panicker, that cannot be treated as a gift. The primary burden was on the Assessing Officer to prove that prima facie ingredients of gift are fulfilled. Moreover, as we have already expressed, the Assessing Officer has not taken pains to even examine Shri Ramachandra Panicker who had given the letter confirming the fact that the money was belonging to him. In our considered opinion, on the facts of this case, the money given by the assessee to Smt. Sarada and her two daughters is not gift within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. We therefore set aside and cancel the assessment made by the Assessing Officer treating the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 given by the assessee to Smt. P. Sarada and her daughters as a gift under the Gift-tax Act. 8. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed. Order accordingly.
-
2006 (3) TMI 670
Challenged the order u/s 263 passed by the CIT - erroneous and prejudicial - business being hiring of cranes - Depreciation on cranes fall under which block "25% or 40%" - mounted on motor lorries and registered as such under the MV Act - HELD THAT:- It is now a settled position of law that for coming to the conclusion as to whether the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the relevant record would be record as was available to the CIT at the time when the record was perused by him for initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the ld. CIT clearly had jurisdiction and he correctly held that the order of the Assessing Officer dated 31-3-1999 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We therefore, hold that assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act was correct.
Whether the cranes can be said to be motor lorries used in the business of hiring - depreciation u/s 32 - Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the crane was integral part of the motor lorry. Thus, apparently, the case of the appellant is akin to that of the case in the case of Gujco Carriers [2002 (2) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is directly on the issue and as the revenue has failed to show that any other High Court has expressed a contrary view, respectfully following the same, we hold that the appellant is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent on the mobile cranes. This ground of the appellant is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 563
Business income, Zero-tax companies ... ... ... ... ..... ave certified the accounts to be true and fair, of course subject to the qualification that provision was not made for gratuity liability, still qualified as true and fair, the Assessing Officer had no onus cast on him to go beyond that accounts and make adjustments in favour of the assessee especially when no reason has been put forward as to why the liability was not made a charge to the profit and loss account. Therefore, we find that the CIT(A) was right in law in holding that the gratuity need not be adjusted while working out the book profit for the purpose of section 115J. This ground is also liable to be dismissed. 9. The last ground raised by the assessee is regarding the set off of losses in the light of section 115J. This ground is also liable to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 2002 258 ITR 770. 10. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 562
Penalty - For concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... usted against the sundry debtors instead of showing the same in suspense account on the credit side of balance sheet. No evidence or material has been placed on record to show that such explanation was false and the said amount represented some receipts other than receipts from sundry debtors. Thus, this also appears to be a bona fide explanation which the assessee was not able to sustainable because of loss of books of account. But, the same does not show any mala fide intent on the part of the assessee. Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is also not leviable in respect of such addition. 7. In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position discussed above, I am of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the impugned penalty. I find no justification to interfere with his order. The same is upheld and the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 561
Losses - Under head ‘Capital gains’ ... ... ... ... ..... d on the purchase of these units should only go to reduce the cost of the units as was done by the assessee. It may be pointed out that even the Assessing Officer has treated it as part of cost of the purchases. It may further be mentioned that even the department is aggrieved by the direction of the CIT(A) that the incentive received by the assessee in acquiring the capital asset could not be deducted to arrive at the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. To this extent, the revenue rsquo s contention is accepted. As held above, incentive being deducted from the cost of acquisition of these units, the same cannot be brought to tax as income from other sources. We, therefore, allow the assessee rsquo s appeal in this regard. 11. In the light of the decision in the first ground in the departmental appeal, the third ground of the revenue becomes infructuous. 12. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed while the departmental appeal is treated as partly allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 560
... ...
... ... ..... terpretation can be that if any receipt does not form part of the total turnover it should be excluded from the profit of the business. If the receipt is not excluded from the profit of the business, the receipt has to be considered as part of the total turnover. In view of our aforesaid discussion we set aside the order of the CIT(A) so far it direct the Assessing Officer that the conversion charges should be excluded from the total turnover because the conversion charges in the case before us form part of the business profit. We, therefore, modify the direction of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude only the service charges and commissions amounting to Rs. 25,58,344 and miscellaneous receipt amount to Rs. 12,24,193 from the total turnover in addition to the sales tax for which we have already directed in the preceding paragraph. Thus, this ground of the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. 21. In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 559
Business income ... ... ... ... ..... drawn itself from the active role of de facto ownership of the property and the same has been conferred upon the allottee members. Therefore, any liability that may arise out of the sale or transfer of the property will be considered in the hands of respective allottee members. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is nothing improper or unlawful in the present case where the company has allotted the property of building to its members with right to use and enjoy the property perpetually. Therefore, we find that there was no sale or deemed sale by the company of the property to its members and the company has not earned any income by way of transfer of the right to use the property to its allottee members. Therefore, there is no reason to make an estimated addition of Rs. 57,33,358 towards the profit from the business of the assessee-company. It is, therefore, deleted. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (3) TMI 558
Validity of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - For concealment of income - survey u/s 133A - HELD THAT:- We find that at the time of survey operations under section 133A, the statement of Shri Ashok Bhagat, a partner of the firm, was recorded but no question regarding inflation of expenses was put to him. No other enquiry was made by the Department and apart from the admission of the assessee, there is no other evidence brought on record to suggest that the expenses were inflated by the assessee. The surrender of the assessee is a conditional one with a request not to levy penalty and is specifically mentioned that it is to buy peace of mind and also to ward off unnecessary litigation.
There may be number of valid reasons for making a surrender of income at the time of survey and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed merely on the basis of the conditional surrender made by the assessee and particularly in a case where apart from the admission of the assessee, there is no other evidence or material brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the assessee has concealed its income. The argument of the ld DR that but for the survey operations, the assessee would not have come forward with the surrendered amount, we find that this proposition is too hypothetical and penalty for concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income cannot be levied merely on a mere possibility. In this case, the penalty for concealment of income of filing of inacurrate particulars of income was imposed without any objective material brought on record and by accepting only a part of the conditional offer of the assessee, which is unsustainable in law and accordingly, we cancel the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for all the three years on the assessee and the grounds of the appeal of the assessee in all the years are allowed.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
........
|
