|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 325 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1027 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ished the copy of bank statement of Shri Gulshan Arora, from whom a sum of ₹ 90,000/- was received by Cheque and the balance ₹ 40,000/- was deposited out of cash in hand available with the assessee and the photocopy of relevant pages of cash book was furnished on record. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 1,30,000/-. We are in conformity with the order of CIT(A) in view of the explanation of the assessee wherein a sum of ₹ 90,000/- has been received vide cheque from Shri Gulshan Arora, who in turn has confirmed the same. The balance ₹ 40,000/- is claimed by the assessee to have been deposited in cash out of the cash available, which is evidenced by the entries in the cash book. In the absence of any contrary finding, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the ground No.4 raised by the Revenue. o p /o p 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30th day of August 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1026 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Thus both, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the assessee had already shown the excess income in the earlier years, the same income had been taxed in the earlier years and then the difference has been written off in the year under consideration. When the assessee had already paid tax on the interest income in the earlier years, no fault can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal in holding that the assessee was entitled to write off the excess income shown in the earlier years, inasmuch as the same income cannot be taxed twice, once in the earlier years and then again in the year under consideration. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, there being no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, no question of law as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law can be stated to arise out therefrom. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee are identical. Following the same reasoning in the case of Mr. Ketan V. Parekh (supra) as well as the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1999- 2000 in the case of assessee’s group concerns, we also delete the penalties levied under section 271D and 271E for the year under consideration in the instant case of the assessee.” 4.2 Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge by the Revenue. So in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed to be deleted.” 10. Since the issues are similar and penalty is levied on similar facts, respectfully following the decisions of the Coordinate Bench, we delete the penalty. Assessee’s appeal is allowed. 11. In the result, both the penalties are cancelled and both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1023 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... cost accordingly for working out the income from capital gains. Ground of the assessee on this reasoning stands allowed. 19. Assessee’s another plea that backward indexation needs to be applied in this case is not supported by any legal principle nor there is any such provision in the Act to make Assessing Officer obligatory under the statute to take backward inflation index. The Tribunal judgment in the case of Shri Dalpat Singh vs. ITO (supra) also is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Assessing Officer in that case himself has adopted backward inflation index for working out the cost and the Tribunal simply corrected the working. The assessee’s plea is, therefore, rejected. 20. Ground No.7, challenging the charge of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, being consequential in nature, needs no independent adjudication. 21. As a result, the appeal by assessee stands allowed in part. The order pronounced in the open court on 06,08,10.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1022 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ers of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/-. The addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- is however, confirmed in respect of the sleeping partner. o p /o p In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p 10. On ground No.2, the AO disallowed one fifth of expenditure being personal in nature. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Considering the above finding of the authorities below, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference because the expenditure mentioned on these heads like vehicle and telephone expenses, the same could be used by the partners and their family members for personal purpose. No record is produced before us to show that the same were exclusively used for the purpose of business. Therefore, no interference is called for in this matter. As a result, ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1021 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... sessing Officer that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam, HUF (supra) did not apply to his case, the assessee is not entitled in the appellate proceedings, to take the benefit of the law propounded therein. The said decision, in our considered opinion is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, and the CIT(Appeals) made no mistake in accepting the pleas of the assessee. o p /o p 16. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we affirm the order of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. o p /o p 17. In the result thereof, we dismiss the appeal raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 561/Chd/2010 (supra). o p /o p 18. Since in the other captioned appeals, the issue raised is identical, our decision in ITA No.561/Chd/2010 applies mutatis mutandis in other appeals also. o p /o p 19. Resultantly, the captioned 52 appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.08.2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1017 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... at all on the issue whether the transaction was a loan taken by a shareholder or not. The accepted fact was that it was a loan. The Court concluded that the argument of double taxation does not come to the rescue of the assessee. 33. As already stated, in the case on hand, none of the transactions in question, can be considered either as a loan transaction or as an advance in the nature of loan. When the funds transferred from the company to the proprietary concern and vice versa are neither loans or advances, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) cannot be attracted. Thus in view of the above discussion, we delete the additions made for all the three years on merits. 34. Coming to the legal arguments on the additional ground i.e. jurisdiction u/s 153A, as we have decided the issue in favour of the assessee on merits, a decision on the same would be an academic exercise. Thus we do not given any finding on this issue. 35. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1016 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... roach of the Court on this issue has now changed. Apart from the above in cases of this nature where two views are possible and the AO has taken one of the possible views, the CIT cannot exercise power of revision just because the other view will benefit the revenue. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was manufacturing of an article or thing. The Input material and output material was different and it had different commercial use and name. It had different end use. The activity carried on by the assessee cannot be said to be a mere process. We therefore hold that the assessee was manufacturing an article or thing. The order u/s. 263 is therefore set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer allowing claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is held to be proper. In other words, the order u/s. 263 is quashed. 19. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced on 20th Day of August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1015 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the position, we feel for the ends of justice hearing of the matter should be postponed. In view of the submission as aforesaid, no order need be passed on this application. However, liberty is given to Ms. Dasgupta’s (nee Banerjee) client to do what have been stated before us. Once the order of withdrawal is placed before this Court the matter pending before this Court will be taken up for consideration. The application is thus disposed of.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1014 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (100 ITD 125) wherein it was held that merely because of change in ownership the exemption cannot be denied. Another decision relied upon by him is in the case of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (106 TTJ 484) wherein it was held that where a firm is converted into a company and there was change only in the composition of ownership and not the undertaking and business, the exemption allowed to the firm u/s 10A of the Act could not be denied to the company merely because it had been separately granted recognition. 5. Having heard both sides and having considered the rival submissions, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for assessee. The distinctions sought to be brought about by the learned Departmental Representative, in our opinion, are not relevant to the facts of the case before us. In view of the same, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.8.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1013 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... gly allowed.” o p /o p 6. The above observations, with which we are in respect agreement, apply to the fact situation before us as well. In this view of the matter, as long as even employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC are paid by the assessee before the due date of f iling the income tax return, the same are to be allowed as deduction in computation of income of the assessee. It is an undisputed position that the assessee has paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC well before the due date of filing of income tax return. Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute that aspect of the matter. On these facts, and in view of the legal position summed up above, we are of the considered view that the impugned addition indeed deserves to be deleted. o p /o p We direct so. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. o p /o p 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this 20th day of August, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1012 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... are answered as follows On the first question Deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder. On the second question The expression ‘shareholder’ referred to in section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareholder then the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply.” 5. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances we find that issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the special bench , respectfully following the decision of the special bench we do not find any merit in this appeal it is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.8.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1010 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... application is delayed merely by about 10 months and that delay could be occurred due to trustees being preoccupied with other initial activities towards the object of the trust, and in setting up the project, taking a liberal view, we hold that the assessee trust is to be granted registration from the date of its creation, and not from the first day of April, 2006 i.e. the beginning of the financial year in which application for registration was made i.e. on 20.6.2006. 16. As such we direct the CIT to grant registration to the assessee u/s 12A of the Act with effect from the creation of the trust. The matter whether all the provisions of Sections 11 to 13 are complied with in any particular assessment year, shall be looked into by the AO while framing the assessment of the trust. We order accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is allowed in the manner as indicated above. 18. This decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 20th August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1009 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... order of the Tribunal in Virendra Kumar Jain’s case supra hold that the assessee is entitled to set off of speculation loss brought forward from Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02 against the speculation profit for Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee in full. The ground No.2 taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed and in view of the decision in ground No.2, ground No.3 taken by the assessee is, therefore, rejected being not pressed. 14. Ground No.4 is against the levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C. 15. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue is consequential in nature which was not objected to by the ld. DR. 16. That being so we direct the Assessing Officer to allow consequential relief in this regard and accordingly the ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 17. In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.8.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1008 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ission paid by the assessee for helping the assessee for services connected to the impugned transactions relating to the penny stock. At the outset, the Counsel demonstrated that there is no evidence for such incurring of the expenditure by the assessee. It is merely a guess work that the A.O assumed the payment of the said commission. CIT(A) has not passed a detailed order in this regard while confirming the addition. o p /o p 4. We have perused the relevant orders of the Revenue and perused the material available before us. It is an admitted position that the said amount was arrived at on ad-hoc basis i.e. at 2 of the transactional value. In our opinion, such guess works are not entertainable. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) in this regard should be deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed. o p /o p 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th August, 2010 o p /o p
-
2010 (8) TMI 1007 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aritable even if public welfare is intended to be served. If the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public the purpose would be charitable purpose. When an object is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility, but not so, if it seeks to promote the interest of those who conduct the said trade or industry (CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce 1965 55 ITR 722 (SC). If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity (Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association 1980 121 ITR 1 (SC).” 9. The matter being covered by the judgments, referred to above, the questions are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 10. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1005 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... apital in nature because of its enduring advantage to the assessee. The items were not consumables in nature but part of tools and implements required for implementation of net working project. Taking note of the fact that the provisions of section 32 has been omitted w.e.f. 1.4.1998 vide Finance Act, 1983, he dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 22. Having heard both the sides, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) because it is not disputed that the tools were meant for implementation of net working project executed by the assessee on behalf of its clients and were capital in nature because of their enduring advantage to the assessee. This being uncontroverted fact, the tools formed part of block of assets and only depreciation could be allowed on them. We, accordingly, confirm the order of the CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 23. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2010
-
2010 (8) TMI 1004 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ase laws to support view including the Pune bench decision in the case of M/s Atidab Concrete Pipes and Products Pune vide ITA no 1017/Pn/2002 to support the above. Further, counsel stated that the said amounts were written off as the income of the assessee in the year relevant to the AY 2006-07 and therefore, there is no need for any addition during the year under consideration. Further, we find the judgments in the cases of DSE Engineers (30 SOT 31)(Mum), Sugaoli Sugar Works P Ltd (236 ITR 518) holds that the liabilities do not cease to exists merely by efflux of time. Considering the above settled principles on the issue, we find that the finding of the CIT(A) has to be reversed on this issue. Accordingly, the relevant ground of the assessee are allowed. Further, the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th day of August 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1003 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ecision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2000-2001 in ITA No.3903/M/2004, wherein, the Tribunal for the detailed reasons given in para 4 of the order has dismissed the revenue's grounds as under"- "4. Ground No.1 of the revenue has to be necessarily dismissed for the reason that the assessee has been following cash system of accounting and the foreign exchange in question has not been encashed. The difference between both the market price and average rate has been reflected in the profit and loss account. Under the cash system of accounting such notional accretion cannot form part of income. Thus, the unrealized gain in exchange earners' foreign exchange account can not be added as income of the assessee under the cash system of accounting." 19. Consistent with the precedent, we also reject the ground taken by the revenue and, accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.8.2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1002 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ational 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.
........
|
