|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 325 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1180
... ...
... ... ..... Shri G.C. Gupta, who was nominated by the Hon'ble President, heard the parties on the above questions, and in his capacity as Third Member vide his order dt. 11th June, 2010, concurred with the view taken by the AM and held that subsidy amount received by the Assessee was a revenue receipt in the hands of the Assessee and accordingly decided the issue in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. As for the issue of expenditure of Rs. 7.83 crores being of revenue nature, the Third Member noted that there is no difference of opinion on this issue between the Vice President and the AM constituting the original Bench, since it was held by both of them that the expenditure of Rs. 7.83 crores incurred by the Assessee on rectification and improvement of power lines damaged due to cyclone out of capital subsidy, was of revenue nature. 29. Going by the majority opinion, we allow ground No. 4 of appeal of the Revenue. 30. In the result, Revenue's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1179
... ...
... ... ..... to the effect. The Learned Departmental Representative has not objected to the above submission of the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee. On principle we find that as per provisions of Section 43(6) of the Act only actual depreciation which has been allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee can only be reduced to arrive at opening written down value in the immediately succeeding year. However, in the instant case we find that there is no dispute about the written down value of the car in respect of which depreciation was allowed to the assessee. The assessee in effect seeks a direction by the Tribunal for subsequent year. As the issue of subsequent year is not before us, in our considered opinion we cannot issue such a direction. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 06th day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1174
... ...
... ... ..... ng that the assessee is carrying out activities incidental to the main objects of the Corporation for which it has been granted registration under Section 12AA? (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law in holding that the assessee Trust is eligible or exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 notwithstanding that the dominant activities of the assessee are of business activities with profit motives and are not in the nature of charity? 3. Questions of law in other appeals are also identical. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not disputed that the above questions are covered by order passed today in ITA No. 563 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula v. The Haryana Warehousing Corporation). Accordingly, the questions are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. The appeals are dismissed. 7. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1172
... ...
... ... ..... ontroversy is covered by the decision rendered in ITA No. 439/2008 (Van Oord ACZ India (p) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 15th March, 2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee has been allowed. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed and the order passed by the tribunal is set aside in terms of the order in ITA No. 439/2008. There shall be no order as to cost.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1166
... ...
... ... ..... ted a single instance that the vehicle maintenance expenditure was not meant for the purpose of the business. As far as the question of personal use of scooters was concerned, a decision has already been taken to disallow and the motor car expense as per the above paragraph. Therefore, on the same reasons again the disallowance shall not be justifiable. With the result, the disallowance in respect of vehicle fuel and maintenance expenses is hereby directed to be deleted. Therefore, this ground is partly allowed. 7.1. The next ground is the disallowance in respect of Insurance expenses. The same has to be decided as per the above observation that in respect of the motor car upto the extent of 1/5th of the total claim has to be decided, however, the Insurance in respect of the other vehicles is to be fully allowed. Thus, this ground is also partly allowed. 8. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31/08/2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1160
... ...
... ... ..... T Mum. It was contended that the facts of the instant case were similar to those decided by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (authored by the instant AM) in which it has been held that short-term capital loss suffered after 01-10-2004 could be set off against short-term capital gains earned before 30-09-2004. Another order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Fidelity Investment Trust vs. ADI as reported in 2009 TIOL 595 ITAT Mum., laying down the same ratio was also placed on record. 4. The ld. D.R., after going through both the orders, fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant case were similar to those decided by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the aforenoted cases. In view of the above discussion and rival but common submissions, we are satisfied that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) does not warrant any interference. The same is upheld. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 20th day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1159
... ...
... ... ..... se duty and sales tax also cannot form part of the “total turnover” under section 80HHC(3) of the Act. 13.2 In the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, in ITA no. 1181/Del/2005 dated 23/9/2008 for the AY 2001-02 ,ITAT Delhi Bench, following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to exclude excise duty while working out total turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 13.3. In view of aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in upholding the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A), directing the AO to exclude excise duty and sales tax while working out total turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. Thus, ground no.4 in the appeal is dismissed. 14. Ground nos. 5 & 6 being mere prayer, do not require any separate adjudication and are, therefore, dismissed. 15. In the result , appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 6 -8-2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1158
... ...
... ... ..... he C.I.T. by exercising his powers u/s. 263. It would have been different matter if A.O. had not at all considered the issue of bad debts of ₹ 71,08,600/- in the regular assessment proceedings closed on 8-3-2004. In other words, where AO has not touched an issue at all in regular assessment proceedings and also has not done anything in the proceedings u/s 153A then CIT can exercise his powers u/s 263 directing the AO to carry out enquiries on that issue even in the order u/s 153A. But having inquired into the issue of bad debts of ₹ 71,08,600/ by the A.O. in the original assessment proceedings closed on 8-3-2004 then there remains nothing for racking up the issue again in the proceedings u/s. 153A. Therefore, C.I.T. can not direct the A.O. to do something which A.O. could not do in the proceedings u/s 153A at his own. 25. As a result, we hold that the revision order passed by the Ld. C.I.T. is not valid and is cancelled. Order pronounced in Open Court on 6/8/2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1156
... ...
... ... ..... On the contrary the same are duly audited as required under section 44AB of the Act. The duty draw back will always be part of trading results. If such amount is included while computing gross profit, the results declared by the assessee are better. In such circumstances, no addition could have been made by rejecting the book results. No specific defect has been pointed out in the books of account i.e. whether the purchases are inflated or sales are not recorded. In such circumstances, no addition could “have been made by estimating the gross profit. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 25,04,914/-.” 5. In our opinion, the factual findings of the final fact finding authority are neither perverse nor contrary to record. Accordingly, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the quantum appeal. Since the quantum appeal is, bereft of merit, the question of imposing any penalty does not arise. Accordingly, present appeals are dismissed in limine.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1155
... ...
... ... ..... assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. The assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 3. As a result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16-08-2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1154
... ...
... ... ..... 880 to 1887 there is a record of payment of salary to various workers/staff. At pages 1888 to 2092 there are bills for kirana and general store items. At pages 2093 to 2105 there is a list of payment of salary. At pages 2107 to 2141 there is a list of food expenses. At pages 2142 to 2167 there is a list of payment to various persons. At pages 2171 and 2172 there is a copy of railway tickets. Again at pages 2175 to 2177 there is a list of expenses on various items. At pages 2178 to 2225 there are payments to transporters issued to Ashu Travels. At pages 2226 to 2386 there are bills of cloth, etc. issued by Vimal Cloth Store. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the view that the assessee has explained the application of donation/income received by it. Therefore, the enhancement made by the learned CIT(A) is unjustified and is deleted. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 3rd August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1148
... ...
... ... ..... 2,05,000/-. 3.2 Before us, the learned DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). 3.3 We find that decision of the learned CIT(A) is in line the following cases - a) CIT Vs. Patel Bros. & Co. (1995) 215 ITR 165 (Supreme Court); b) CIT Vs. Regal Theater 116 Taxman 0831 (Delhi High Court); c) Gujarat State Exports Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT 1994 ITR 649; d) Otis Elevator Co., (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 1992 (195) ITR 0682 Bombay and; e) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 2006 (006) SOT 0497 TBOM. 3.4 It is also mentioned that the club facilities are being used for holding board meetings. In view of the aforesaid facts and the cases relied upon by the learned CIT(A), we are of the view that there is no need to interfere with his order in this behalf. 3.5 In result, ground No.2 is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. This order was pronounced in open court on 27.08.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1146
... ...
... ... ..... (supra) was for a payment of lump sum amount in connection with setting up of the factory and 25% thereof was held to be capital in nature, and therefore, there was a transfer of ownership of technical information in that case. Therefore, the said decision will not apply to a running royalty and would be allowable expenditure and, in our opinion, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the same. His order does not call for any interference and is accordingly upheld.” 6. During the year under consideration also, the disallowance of royalty payment was with respect to the same agreement, which was considered by the Tribunal. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are in pari-materia, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case as referred above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1140
... ...
... ... ..... e aforesaid decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in their two decisions by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, followed by the Special Bench, Mumbai, since the amount of ₹ 7,62,787/- ,being the money receivable by the assessee as share broker from his clients against purchase of shares made on their behalf has to be treated as “debt” while undisputedly the brokerage payable by the clients was a part of that debt and that part had been taken into account in computation of his income and the aforesaid amount of ₹ 7,62,787/- having been written off in the year under consideration as bad debt, we are of the opinion that the said amount being the loss suffered by the assessee was allowable as a bad debt u/s 36(1)(viii)/36(2) of the Act . Therefore, we have no hesitation in reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A) and consequently, allowing the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 19-08-2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1137
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee regarding setting off of the rental payments made over and above the one recorded in the books against other additions on account of suppressed profits sustained by this Tribunal in accordance with law. Ground No. 2 taken by the assessee in its appeal for A.Y. 2000-01 and ground No. 8 to 10 taken in its appeal for A.Y. 2001-02 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.” 42. In line with the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we also restore the issue to the Assessing Officer in this year for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer will consider the issue in the light of assertion made by the parties that the debit notes were not intended to be acted upon and also take into account the written leave and licence agreement between the parties. For the statistical purposes, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is treated as allowed. 43. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... sions also support the case of the assessee. When the Memorandum of settlement is read in its entirety in its correct perspective, the terms “release” or “relinquish” are found to be not material. The family settlement is simpliciter a settlement arrived at to avoid further protracted litigation amongst family members. Under such circumstances, the Courts/Tribunals have excluded the receipt of any capital asset or any consideration out of the purview of section 2(47), and it has not been treated as a ‘transfer’ in the same meaning as it is given in that section. Consequently, we hold that the assessee is not required to pay any capital gains tax as no such liability arises in this case. As a result, we allow the appeal of the assessee and set aside the orders of the authorities below, particularly the order appealed against. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 31.08.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... the individual assessments in accordance with law. Such amounts cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the assessee company. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer having traced out the source of funds to specific persons who had invested the same in shares of the assessee company, it was open for the Assessing Officer to proceed against the said persons. The funds not having emanated from the assessee company, there was no warrant for making addition of the said amount as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act in its hands. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The question stands answered accordingly, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, there being no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1134
Condonation of delay in filling appeal before ITAT - delay of 310 days - due to change of Managing Director, took their own time to get the papers signed and to file the appeal - Whether constitute a sufficient cause u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is not disputed after the order came to be passed, the Managing Director was changed and thereafter, the Chartered Accountant took a decision to prefer the appeal and though papers were sent for signature was not signed and appeal was not filed. What is to be seen in such matters is that, the appellant was negligent and by not filing the appeal within time, whether there is any valuable right of the appellant, which would be taken away by not condoning the delay in the matters arising under the Income-tax Act, ultimately the question is, what is the tax payable under law.
It is not an adversary litigation. An assessee cannot be charged without statutory authority. Under these circumstances, the approach of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for not condoning the delay is unsustainable in law. Hence, we are satisfied that the appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Hence, we pass the following:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is hereby set aside. The application filed for condonation of delay of 310 days in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... p the case on 16.3.2007 and allowed the adjournment without making entry in the order sheet, thus allowed the request for adjournment. The assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17.12.2007. ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ADIT - 115 TTJ 419, observed that where assessment had been made u/s 143(2) and not u/s 144, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(b) could not be levied. In the instant case also, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, according proposition stated by the ITAT in the aforementioned matter is applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, this case is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... e is no evidence on record to show that the items which were valued as on 31.03.2005 at a particular amount, were sold immediately thereafter at a price higher than the price taken by the assessee in the closing stock. In this view of the matter and having regard to the consistent method of accounting for valuing the closing stock followed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the assessee’s claim of reduction in valuation of closing stock as on 31.03.2005 as compared to the value of the opening stock of the same item as on 01.04.2005 is justified and it is to be allowed while determining the assessee’s income from business. We therefore, delete the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A) and allow this ground raised by the assessee. The AO shall modify the assessment order accordingly. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 22. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 20th August, 2010.
........
|
