|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 325 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1119 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... A) out of miscellaneous expenses on the ground that there was a possibility of involvement of personal element in the said expenses. In the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT 2002 253 ITR 749/121 Taxman 43 (Guj.), it was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that no disallowance on account of involvement of personal element in the expenses can be made in case of a company. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we delete the disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) out of miscellaneous expenses for alleged involvement of personal element and allow ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal. 10. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1118 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee disabled from making such provision in a year only for a reason that similar provisions were not made for any earlier years. In our opinion, when assessee is lawfully and legitimately eligible to make a claim for provision for warrantee and if it has made the provision on scientific basis, worked on preceding year’s actual warrantee expenses, the claim has to be allowed, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotor Control Ltd supra . Their Lordships clearly held that provision for warrantee made on scientific basis was allowable. In view of this decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, the case of Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd supra of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered on an earlier date, pales into insignificance. In this view of the matter, we cannot find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) 14. In the result appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 19.08.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1115 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as obtained instruction from the Department and the Department vide its letter dated 10.03.2010 has stated that the issue will not affect the income of the assessee and the matter is tax neutral. For this reason alone, we dismiss this appeal, leaving the question of law raised open.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1110 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nal Inc. (supra) we hold that only 15% of gross receipts could be attributed as accruing or arising in India and since the assessee had already incurred expenditure @ 25% of gross receipts on account of payments to ADSIL in India, there is no income which can be taxed in India. 8. In assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessee has also raised grounds challenging the reopening of the assessments. The Learned Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that in case the appeals were decided in favour of the assessee on merit it may not be necessary to go into the legal issue relating to the reopening of the assessments. No arguments were also advanced on this issue. As we have already decided the appeals in favour of the assessee on merit, we do not go into the issue of reopening of the assessments in A.Yrs.2001-02 and 2002-03. 9. In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of the order above. 10. The order was pronounced in open court on 20.08.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1109 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. Their lordships have not considered various statutory provisions discussed hereinabove in their true spirit. With profound respect, we are in disagreement with the judgment of Karnataka High Court. 23. In view of the above, we are of the view that in case application under section 254(2) of the Act is rejected by the Tribunal, then appeal under section 260A of the Act, shall not be maintainable. The only option with the Revenue is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. With liberty to appellant to invoke writ jurisdiction. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue to the extent of maintainability. Since the appeal is not maintainable, no finding is recorded with regard to controversy on merit with liberty to appellant to approach the appropriate forum or to invoke writ jurisdiction. 24. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1108 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s rightly been sustained by CIT(A). 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. The AO in the assessment order has not pin-pointed any voucher which was unsupported or not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business. The assessee is maintaining accounts and details which were produced before the AO. The disallowance made by the AO was adhoc one. Similarly ld. CIT(A) has sustained partial disallowance without giving any finding that any particular voucher was not maintained by the assessee. Keeping in view the entirety of facts of present case, we are of the opinion that disallowance partly sustained by CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and has to be deleted. Therefore, we delete the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) in respect of both the items. Both the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 13.8.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1107 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... s squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Devi Fisheries Ltd. (supra) in which the Tribunal following the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. Dabur India Limited (supra) has categorically held that the main purpose in buying the packing material was to obtain goods for the purpose of packing and the fact that incidentally some printing was required to be done by the supplier was of no consequence; therefore, the provisions of section 194C are not attracted. Since the impugned issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we find no justification to take a contrary view in this appeal. Accordingly, we are of the view that since CIT(A) has decided the issue in consonance with the order of the Tribunal and the judgement of Delhi High Court, we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm the same. 5. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 18.8.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1106 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... nk accounts is on the depositors and if any adverse inference has to be drawn on the basis of examination of these accounts unless nexus is established between the deposits in the bank accounts of the depositors and flow of fund from the appellant such adverse inference has to be drawn only in the hands of the depositors and not the appellant. Considering the above facts of the case the addition of ₹ 16,25,691/- is directed to be deleted. These grounds of the appellant are therefore allowed. The appellant gets relief of ₹ 16,25,691/-.” In view of the above and since the submissions of the assessee and also the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Ld. DR at the time of hearing before us, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. The appeal of the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.8.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1105 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he lower authorities are set aside, the matter is remanded to the file of assessing officer. The assessing officer shall reconsider the issue and thereafter decide the same in accordance with the law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. The next addition is with regard to interest on TDS, Sales Tax refund, machinery hire charges seinerages etc. These amounts are received in addition to the contract work. Interest on TDS, Sales tax refund, seinerages charge refund, machinery hire charge etc. are all independent from the contract work. The assessee would have earned this income even otherwise. Therefore, as in the case of interest on fixed deposit, these receipts are also to be separately added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the lower authorities. 18. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th August, 2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1104 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rm is constituted to support the financial needs of the ‘Bhogilal Family’ Group concerns and it is a commercial expediency. In our opinion, applying the principles laid down in the case of S.A. Builders (supra), as per the facts on record, the transact ions with the four Group concerns (as noted by the A.O, two Group concerns are closed and hence, no interest is disallowed) are in the nature of the commercial expediency only and there is no justification to make disallowance of the interest as done by the A.O. We accordingly delete the addition made by the A.O of ₹ 8,55,037/ -. ” 5. To maintain the consistency with the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case and respect fully fol lowing the same we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The addition of disallowance of interest of ₹ 6,88,161/ - is deleted. 6. In the result , the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 13.08.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... iew of lack of orders and lesser production, was rejected in a summary manner. Before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed the copy of depreciation chart, copy of which is also furnished before us. The contention of the assessee was that the depreciation at Parwanoo Unit was claimed at ₹ 3,10,275/- only. Further, the investment made in the plant and machinery was accepted in the preceding year and depreciation was allowed to the assessee. The said machineries in later years were transferred to the Panchkula unit due to lack of manufacturing activities at Parwanoo Unit establishes the existence of the plant and machinery and consequently the claim of depreciation is to be allowed. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee and deleting the addition of ₹ 9,32,258/-. The ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30th day of August,2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... om COD to prefer the appeal. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to refile after the approval is obtained. We have said so, as the appeal stands disposed of with liberty to refile when the approval is obtained.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1089 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or commercial right” because what s. 32(1)(ii) contemplates is “business or commercial rights” relating to intellectual properties and not all categories of business or commercial rights. Since a BSE card is not a business or commercial right relating to intellectual property rights depreciation cannot be allowed on it; (3) The fact that a BSE card is a capital asset and liable for capital gains tax is irrelevant because s. 32 does not allow depreciation on all capital assets but only on capital assets which fall in the enumerated categories. 28. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the assessee is not entitled to claim deprecation on BSE card. We therefore reverse the order of learned CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer. In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed. 29. In the result, both the appeal by the revenue and assessee, are partly allowed. Order was pronounced on 20th Day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1087 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... partners. There is no specific provision in the clauses of the partnership deed in this case as is reproduced in the impugned order to advise charge interest on debit balance. The assessee pleaded that in this year the partners have decided not to charge any interest on debit balance of the partners. Therefore, the AO was not justified in directing to charge notional interest on the debit balance of the partners. Moreover, the interest is calculated on the debit balance as on 01-04-2006, according to the findings of the learned CIT(A) which is the beginning of the financial year to the assessment year under appeal. Considering the above, we do not find any justification to charge any notional interest on the debit balance of the partners account. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31-08-2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1085 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... vouchers were getting signed by them for the amounts paid to them for such expenses. Hence, the same should be allowed in full. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10 out of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee as the expenses of the assessee were not properly vouched was accepted to some extent. Therefore, we find that the restriction of disallowance as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is reasonable considering the volume of the expenses claimed by the assessee and in the absence of any controverting material brought on record by the assessee, we do not find any necessity to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and the same is hereby upheld. This ground of appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed. 13. Ground no. 6 is consequential in nature and does not require any adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31.8.10.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1082 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 1961 - Business disallowance - Gratuity - Assessment year 1979-80 - Assessee-company claimed deduction under section 40A(7) (b) (i) on account of gratuity actually deposited in fund created by it - Whether such a claim could only have been disallowed if it had been proved that gratuity, in respect of which said payment had been made, had not become payable during previous year - Held, yes - Whether in absence of such a case made out by revenue, Tribunal was right in holding that grant of approval of gratuity fund was not relevant for purpose of instant case as said deduction was not being claimed on account of any provision and amount of gratuity was an allowable deduction - Held, yes”. 5. Considering the above aspects, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. There is no merit in the departmental appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed. 6. As a result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 06-08-2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1081 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153A - Whether incriminating documents found during the course of search? - Rejection of claim u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- There is not only a statement of having made e-xcessive claims, but it is followed up by su-motto surrender of the claims made earlier u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Just because there is no statement or withdrawal of claim for this particular assessment year, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of the assessee not having made the false claim u/s 80IB(10) during this year. Once during the course of search, certain information has come to light, that the assessee has made certain false claims, on a particular issue, in our considered opinion, the AO has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the claim of exemption u/s 80IB(10) in all the assessment years, while processing the returns of income u/s. 153A read with section 143(3). Thus in view of the information that has come to light during the course of search and seizure operations on the claims of exemption made by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) during the period prior to the search, it is held that there is information, which is intangible material, unearthed as a result of search, and this material can be used for the purpose of assessment made u/s 153A read with section 143(3). Hence, on facts, we fully agree with the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative
Deduction u/s.80(IB)(10) - whether the project is constructed on a plot of land which is more than one acre.? - HELD THAT:- Additional housing project constructed on an existing project, which fulfils the requirement of the size of the plot of land of minimum 1 acre, would be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). This clarification, in our considered opinion supports the literal interpretation pleaded by the learned counsel for the assessee.
In view of the factual position that the project in question is purely a residential project without a commercial element and as this project is located on a plot of land of a size of 1.43 acres as following VANDANA PROPERTIES case [2009 (4) TMI 530 - ITAT MUMBAI] we allow this ground of the assessee.
Eligibility for exemption u/s.80IB(10) of Pocket 10 MIDC - Whether FAA has erroneously considered 10% of the plot area instead of considering 10% of the total constructed area while examining the eligibility for exemption? - HELD THAT:- As per the mandate Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates [2009 (4) TMI 215 - ITAT PUNE] as already referred above while dealing ground No.1, what is to be considered is 10% of the built up area and not 10% of the plot area. Thus we set aside this issue to the file of the AO for examining, if the assessee’s built up commercial area is less than or more than 10% of the total built up area. If the commercial built up area is less than 10% of the total built up area, the case of the assessee should succeed. If it is not so, the assessee will not be entitled for any exemption u/s.80IB(10). With these observations we set aside the issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes
Addition made u/s 2(22)(e) - financial transactions between sister concerns - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd. [2008 (4) TMI 428 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that when the assessee entered into normal business transaction as a part of day to day business activity, this cannot be treated as loans or as advances.
We accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that the transactions between these sister concerns are business transactions and are guided by commercial expediency and are mere diversion of funds and are neither a loan or advance as contemplated u/s 2(22)(e). Thus this ground of the assessee is allowed.
Appeals are allowed in part.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1079 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nsidered opinion it will be in the interest of justice if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to frame the assessment afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say the assessee will be at liberty to lead any evidence in support of its case whether or not furnished earlier.” 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the record of the case. We find the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Precision Shears & Knives Pvt Ltd (supra). In this case, panchanama was drawn and, therefore, we, in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to frame the assessment afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced on 20th August, 2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1078 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... TAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Jagdish Duggal vs ACIT, (2009) 24 DTR (Chd) (Trib) 174. On the other hand, the ld.DR has vehemently disputed the submission of the ld.AR by stating that in any case, the assessee is bound to prove that it was actually the gift amount received from above stated relatives. 39. After cogitating the entire facts and evidence available before us, it is for certain that no incriminating evidence was found during search and it was only the assessee who had disclosed this gift. By following the above decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench, we have to delete this addition from the hands of the assessee. We order to delete the impugned amount accordingly. 40. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 41. To summarize the result, all the appeals in the case of Shri S. Selvaraj, in I.T.A.Nos. 1258 to 1264/Mds/2009 and I.T.A.No. 1257/Mds/2009 in the case of Shri S.Kathirvel, are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.8.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1077 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Ld. Departmental Representative that the amount which is required to be deducted as per section 57(iii) has to be determined. Though Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has held that netting of has to be granted, but he has not quantified the amount which can be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section 57(iii). 7.2 Therefore, we consider it just and proper to restore the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer for a limited purpose of determining the allowable deduction strictly in the manner provided in section 57(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer after giving assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing will determine such deductible amount in respect of all the assessment years under appeal and after determining the same, he will allow the deduction thereof. We direct accordingly. 8. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2010.
........
|
