|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 325 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1050 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... mmissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has given detailed discussion on the submissions made by the ld. counsel of the assessee. Admittedly, on 03.11.2004, the assessee deposited ₹ 1,00,000/- and the assessee was having balance available at ₹ 73,876/-. Thus the assessee has worked out negative cash balance of Rs.(-)26,124/-. However, it has not considered the said negative closing balance as opening cash balance for 03.11.2004. Instead the assessee has considered the positive original opening cash balance for further calculations. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are convinced that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has given cogent reason for confirming working of peak credit at ₹ 4,00,000/- worked by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, decline to interfere. Resultantly, this ground of appeal is rejected. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 18.08.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1048 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y debatable one has also opined that the assessee had acquired the shares of its principal company itself shows that the intention of the assessee was to retain control and the same was obviously earning of the dividend on account of this holding is incidental. It is urged by him that the assessee has preferred an appeal against the determination of quantum and if the said finding remains intact in this appeal, the revenue may face difficulties in the quantum appeal. At this juncture, Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the said aspects were in the realm of submission of the assessee. Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal fairly stated that if they are in the realm of submission of the assessee, he has no objection if they are allowed to stay. In view of the aforesaid, we clarify that the said observations of the tribunal would be treated as submissions of the assessee for all purposes. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1047 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 149 of the Act is still available. 13. The learned Senior Counsel would fairly submit that section 245HA(4) of the Act, provides that the period spent before the Settlement Commission and in this writ petition before this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Regarding this legal position, there can be no controversy. Therefore, if the Assessing Authority decides to reassess the escaped income of the petitioner for the relevant years in question in this writ petition, for doing so, the time spent before the Settlement Commission and in this writ petition shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 14. In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Commission is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission shall stand rejected with liberty to the Assessing Authority to proceed further under sections 147 and 148 of the Act, if it is so warranted. No costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1046 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on’ble Supreme Court. However, the facts in the present case are different. Similarly, in the case of Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. (supra), the dispute was not with regard to capital or revenue nature of the expenditure but was whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the technical know-how obtained. Thus, the case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. DR are distinguishable on facts. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,62,770/-.” 5. As the royalty expenses pertained to the same agreement, therefore, the aforementioned order of the Tribunal will fully apply to the present year also. Respectfully following the said order, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced, we find no merit in departmental appeal which raises only one issue regarding deletion of disallowance made on account of royalty. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 13.8.10.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1045 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... 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 1044 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he disallowance of telephone expenses of ₹ 15,000/-, salary expenses of ₹ 20,000/- and local conveyance expenses of ₹ 10,000/- on adhoc basis. 9. After hearing both the parties we find that the AO made the disallowance of above expenses on adhoc basis for want of details and considered it to be part of personal in nature. We find the CIT A confirmed the action of the AO on the ground that such disallowance is fair and reasonable in the absence of complete bills and vouchers. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT A since, admittedly, the assessee was not able to furnish the details with supporting evidence etc., to the satisfaction of the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT A on this issue is upheld. The second issue raised in the ground raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13th day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1043 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. 6.1. It is not necessary for he Tribunal to state in its judgement specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts as if that were a magic formula; if the judgement of the Tribunal shows that it has in fact done so there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly we do not find any necessity to recall the order of the Tribunal. The miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 5. In view of the above settled position, we inclined to set aside the impugned issue to the file of assessing officer on similar directions. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court 23 .8.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1042 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t both the ladies are graduates and devoted four days in a week towards office administration and both are assessed to tax. But no evidence in support of this contention was given. The AO did not find the reply satisfactory and made the addition. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that there is no evidence of any services rendered by the two ladies. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view there is no case for interference in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this point. Once there is no evidence of rendering any service by the two ladies to the assessee company the question of any payment to them would not arise. Therefore, the claim that the expenses said to have been incurred for the business purposes of the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is rejected. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 6/8/2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1041 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Government Agencies. In the facts of the case, no further deduction is allowable on account of depreciation, interest and other expenses, once the income is determined by applying net profit rate to the receipts. The ground No.2 raised by the assessee is thus allowed and ground Nos. 4 & 5 are dismissed. 12. The assessee in Assessment Year 2006-07 (ITA No.865/Chd/2009) has raised another ground by way of ground No.3. 3. That the learned CIT(A), Chandigarh has not been justified in passing an ex-parte order without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 13. In view of our decision against the quantum addition and in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in applying net profit rate of 8 to the contract receipts, we dismiss the ground No.3 raised by the assessee in ITA No. 865/Chd/2005. 14. In the result, the three appeals in ITA Nos. 818, 819 & 865/Chd/2009 are partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1039 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rt, then in absence of the same, even if there is no decision on the issue of the jurisdictional High Court, the decision rendered by the other High Courts should be respectfully followed by the courts below the High Court. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 4. Once the said Scheme of State Bank of India has been considered by the Respected Co-ordinate Bench”SMC” (supra) and the facts of the present appeal appeared to be identical, therefore, following the said decision as reproduced above, we hereby direct to allow the claim. Resultantly, grounds of the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31/08/2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1038 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s commonly known, mutton is an item which is derived from slaughtering of sheep, goats, etc.” In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the decision of the ITAT in the case of M/s A1-Noor Exports (supra), we hold that no disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) on the facts of the present case. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 7. Ld. CIT(A) while grating the relief to the assessee has also relied upon the aforementioned orders of the Tribunal and it has been found by him that the facts remain identical for the year under appeal. Therefore, respectfully following the aforementioned decision, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which impugned relief has been given to the assessee. This ground of the revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 13.8.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1037 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... red view that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Hyderabad Allwy Metal Works Ltd. (Supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashoke Marketing Ltd. (supra) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mcgaw Rabindra Laboratories (I) Ltd. (supra) squarely applied to the facts of the case of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the said expenditure towards bank charges of ₹ 6,79,331/- related to the new project i.e. restaurant cum hotel project is capital expenditure and would have to be capitalized as cost of the project and the same cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground No. 1 of the appeal taken by the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 6.8.2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1036 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he value of gifts shown by the assessee in her books and the same value had been taken as the cost of the property while computing the capital gain in the year of sale. Therefore in our view the value of gift had been rightly taken at ₹ 1,96,28,314/-. The stamp duty value is deemed as market value under section 50C only for the purpose of computation of capital gain from sale of land/ building and even that provision was applicable from 2003-04 and thus cannot be applied in case of the assessee which relates to taxability of value of gift and not capital gain, for assessment year 2002-03. 3.5.3 In view of the foregoing discussion we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) holding that the sum of ₹ 1,96,28,314/- being the value of immovable property received by the assessee as gift is assessable as income under section 28(iv) and same is therefore upheld. 4. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. The order was pronounced in open court on 13.08.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1035 - ITAT MUMBAI
Correct head of income - rent received for allowing the use of terrace area - 'Income from Other Sources' or 'Income from House Property' - assessee has shown an amount as rent received from Reliance Telecom and after deducting an amount being deduction u/s. 24(a) @ 30 per cent from the above amount and as shown an amount as income from house property.
HELD THAT:- As relying on S. SOHAN SINGH. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER. [1985 (11) TMI 90 - ITAT DELHI-C] we are of the view that the letting out of the terrace has to be assessed under the head income from house property subject to deduction u/s 24 as against income from other sources assessed by the AO. We hold and order accordingly. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1034 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... #8377; 69,94,000/-. The valuation of the property was also considered by the District Registrar/the appellate authority. When the matter of under valuation of the property was initiated against the assessee, the District Registrar/the appellate authority has determined the value of the land at ₹ 79,61,525/- and that of the building at ₹ 21,60,000/-. o p /o p 13. On going through the three sets of valuation reports available with us, we find that more effective and realistic valuation was that of the District Registrar, Shimoga. So, we direct the assessing authority to re-compute the capital gains on the basis of the valuation decided by the District Registrar, Shimoga through his proceedings dated 18.5.2006. o p /o p 14. The assessing authority is directed to modify the assessment on the above lines. o p /o p 15. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced on Tuesday the 10th day of August, 2010, at Bangalore. o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1033 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of AO for service of notice u/s 143(2) - Facts of the case, Notice was duly served u/s 143 along with detailed questionnaire by the Dy. CIT, which was served upon the assessee on 21st April, 2006 when the jurisdiction stood transferred to him. Sec. 124(3) specifically provides for limitation of one month, inter alia, from the date of service of notice u/s 143(2).
HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly objection was not taken within one month. Therefore, for this reason, we are of opinion that the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessment proceeding for the block period was without jurisdiction is not correct. We, thus, decide the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As a result thereof, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1032 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 15- O(5) of the Act. Therefore deduction u/s. 80-M was available to recipient of the dividend. Once, dividend is taxable, deduction is allowable u/s. 80-M of the Act in the case of recipient to the extent of divided distributed by the recipient company out of its own profit. In the light of the above, we find no grounds to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). Consequently, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 35. In view of the above, ground No. 6 raised by the revenue also dismissed. 36. In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed. ITA No. 5415/Mum/2006 Assessee’s appeal. 37. At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he was not pressing adjudication of the grounds raised in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 38. In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed while appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced on 6th Day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1031 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... se amount was not payable but already paid.” 4. It is undisputed fact that the amounts in question are already ‘paid’. In view of this factual matrix of case and the existing binding coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal, we have bound to follow the precedent ie Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (supra) and decision of Pune Bench in the case of Mrs. Shah Charulata Milind (supra). Considering the above settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion, order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference for the above reasons. Accordingly the grounds raised are dismissed as they are mere technical ones in nature. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. C.O. No. 20/PN/2010 Considering our decision on the main appeal of the revenue, the grounds raised in the appeal of Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, assessee’s Cross Objection is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th day of August 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1029 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee has not submitted Form No. 10CCB along with the return of income, which is mandatory to claim deduction u/s 80IB. Even during the course of assessment proceedings also the assessee has not submitted the same. The learned AR pointed out a letter dated 01.12.2008 which was addressed to IT department wherein stated that the Form No. 10CCB is enclosed, a copy of the said letter has placed in paper book page NO 56. Since contradictory facts have been recorded by the AO and CIT (A) regarding filing of form 10CCB we therefore remit this matter back to the fi le of the CIT (A) for a limited purpose to examine whether the assessee has furnished Form No. 10CCB before the AO and decide the issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. o p /o p 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court on this 31s t day of August, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1028 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... reas. The close enunciation dealing with the operation of a fiction, cannot be overlooked in that context. When the statute commands a deeming of the putative state of affairs as the real state of affairs, imagination should not boggle half way through.” In the present case, the addition is exactly the result of the Assessing Officer’s imagination which boggled half way through. 11. Summing up the above discussion, the Assessing Officer is directed first to ascertain which company or companies have given loans to the assessee on the basis of the discussion in paragraph 9 above. Having arrived at the conclusion in accordance with law with regard to the first aspect, he will then decide upon the quantum of deemed dividend on the basis of payment made on each day vis-avis the accumulated profits of that company on the date of payment. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the court on 6-8-2010.
........
|
