|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1193 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... was with reference to the order u/s 132(5) or u/s 143(3) of the Act being immaterial. Incidentally, the assessee had pushed through its letter dt 29.3.2007 during the course of proceedings u/s 132 of the Act only. Such being the ground reality, in our view as recorded above, the CIT(A) was not justified in brushing aside the legitimate claim of the assessee. However, he had amended his stand by directing the AO to give credit of prepaid tax according to the provisions of law. 10.4. By the by, it could not be ascertained from the records made available, whether the assessee’s request has been conceded or otherwise either by the DDIT or the AO. In these circumstances, the AO is directed to keep in view the assessee’s letter cited above and also ruling of the Delhi High Court while giving effect to this order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1192 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... material from foreign company having head office at Singapore and, therefore, the travel to Singapore was for the purpose of business needs also remains uncontroverted. Further the submission of the assessee before the learned CIT (Appeals) that proof of expenditure along with necessary explanation was duly furnished to AO vide letter dated 15.12.2008 and thereafter, the AO did not ask any further question before completing the assessment on 19.12.2008 also remains uncontroverted. 14. In view of the above, and in view of the detailed order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) on this issue and in absence of any contrary material brought to our noticed by the learned DR against the above factual findings given by the learned CIT(Appeal), we do not find any infirmity in his order. We accordingly, uphold the same and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1191 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... nvestment primarily because of the reason of the withdrawal or deletion of sub rule 5(b) to Schedule First of sec. 44 of I.T. Act. Once we have taken this view therefore the enhancement as proposed by ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the directions in this regard are set aside. Resultantly Ground no. 1 is allowed consequent thereupon Ground no. 2 automatically goes in favour of the assessee.” 4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that both the issues raised by Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the appeal of the assessee and the Ld. DR for the Revenue in the CO are covered by the said order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the AO is directed to compute the income of the assessee complying with the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2003-04. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the C.O of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 10th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1190 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... usively for the purposes of business. Perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that the CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that M/s.RPG Enterprises had actually rendered services for the business needs of the assessee company and the assessee company has also taken benefit of infrastructure resources services and expert guidance of the group corporate center at RPG Enterprises and, therefore, the expenditure was allowable. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1189 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e purchase of shares during the year and even in the earlier and subsequent years were booked under investment, which is clear as per clause (4) of Schedule 13 to the audited accounts for the year ended on 31.3.2005. In the instant case, the shares of Ballarpur Inds. Ltd. were purchased in March, 2003; those were held as assessee’s investment as on 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2004 and were only sold during AY 2005-06. The assessee received dividend of ₹ 6.39 lakhs on those shares during AY 2004-05. The fact that the shares have been held as investment as per accounts running over 3 accounting periods, would by itself indicate that at the time of making the purchase of those shares, the assessee could not have the intention of reselling the same at a profit in a foreseeable future, or that the assessee’s intention is other than long term appreciation of the investments or earning dividend thereon” No question of law arises. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1188 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the lower authorities. Accordingly the same is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same as business loss. 10. The next ground of appeal is with regard to agricultural income. We heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned DR. The assessee is admittedly owning 150 acres of land out of which 86.78 acres of land was cultivated with mango trees and 28.5 acres of land was cultivated with paddy. The assessee has estimated ₹ 15,000 per acre for mango cultivation and ₹ 10,000 per acre for paddy cultivation. This issue was also elaborately considered in assessee's own case for Assessment year 2006-07 at para 8 of this order. In view of the detailed discussion in para 8 above, we are unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 8 lakhs is deleted. 11. In the result, all the three appeals of the two assessees stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1186 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ijit Prasad,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that there was no valid sanction of the competent Authority under Section 151(1) proviso of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1185 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y reason for the A.O to disallow the capital loss suffered by them, but the facts apparently do not exhibit the transaction as a simple business transaction keeping in view the background of both the assessees. The Ld. First Appellate Authority ought to have looked into the controversy from all possible angles instead of simply reproducing the written submissions and then accepting them. The explanation of the assessee extracted supra has not been considered. In our opinion, the issue require a re-look at the end of Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, we set aside both the orders and restore the issue in both the appeals to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for re-adjudication. It is needless to say that the observations made by us would not impair or injure the case of the Assessing Officer or would not cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee. 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only. The order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1183 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Interest received from fixed deposits (FD) - chargeable to tax - under the head 'Income from other sources - the assessee is in the process of setting up of multi product SEZ project. For the purpose of setting up of the project the assessee borrowed ₹ 289 crores from banks. A part of the amount which was not required immediately was invested in FD with bank. Assessee claimed that that the interest paid on the borrowed funds has to be set off from the interest received on the FD.
HELD THAT:- In Case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals an Fertilizers Ltd.[1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] held that In view of section 57(iii), interest paid on OD obtained for the purpose of business could not be deducted from the interest earned on monies kept in FD as such income derived by way of interest on FD was to be taxed under the head 'Income from other sources'. We, however, make it clear that though the assessee may not be entitled to have interest paid by it on OD to the bank, deducted from the interest received by it on the short-term FD, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the same from its business income. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1181 - ITAT INDORE
Depreciation on Toll Road developed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- In terms of BOT scheme and entrepreneur is required to build an infrastructure facility by arranging its own finances. Thereupon the operation and maintenance is also the responsibility of the entrepreneur. In consideration thereupon such entrepreneur is entitled to collect on from the motor vehicle passing through such road/bridges etc. In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. Our view is further supported by the decision of the Pune Bench in the case of Ashoka Info (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2008 (12) TMI 271 - ITAT PUNE-B]. Therefore, this ground of the assessee in both the appeals is allowed.
Disallowance of vehicle running and maintenance expenses - HELD THAT:- In the present appeals, the disallowance was made for want of log-book and other relevant record, meaning thereby, it was not explained by the assessee that the vehicles were exclusively used for business purposes. The personal use of vehicles is also not ruled out, therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, only 20% of the claimed expenses are disallowed, consequently, this ground of the assessee is party allowed.
adhoc disallowance - HELD THAT:- the disallowance is restricted to 50% of the claimed amounts, therefore, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed. Finally, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1180 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... o the Supreme Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the observations of the Apex Court in view of the fact that the factual matrix. In the present case, the factual position was clear that there was no business activity of any kind during the year in question and there is only a speculative submission that it is a temporary suspension of business. In our opinion, the factual matrix does not require us to look around in any direction except the statutory language of the required provisions of section 72 and 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, unabsorbed depreciation from the business could not be set off of against the income assessed under the head ‘income from other sources’ in the current previous year. 28. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.288/H/2009 is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee in its CO.8/Hyd/2009 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court 30.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1179 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... er concern in the case of Mahavir Rolling Mills Ltd. (supra) we uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Now coming to assessee’s CO No.182/Ahd/2008. 8. The only issue in this CO of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissed the ground challenging the reopening of the assessment. For this, assessee has raised the following effective ground No.1 - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground challenging the reopening of the assessment and passing the order by the A.O. u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. He further erred in holding that the reopening is for valid reasons.” 9. At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he has instruction from the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, we dismiss this issue as not pressed. 10. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and that of assessee CO is dismissed as not pressed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1177 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e powers of the assessing authority. Here, on the other hand, the directions were given by the ld. CIT(A). It is trite law that powers of the CIT(A) are coterminous with the powers of the Assessing Officer and further he can consider any matter while dealing with an appeal arising out of an assessment. Thus, the CIT(A) was well within his powers to give the directions. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Ground No.4, therefore, stands dismissed. 11. There is no case for the Revenue that the claim made by the assessee was not actually charged by it to its income. We are of the opinion that when there is no factual variation in the present assessment year, we are bound to decide the issue by following the Tribunal order cited supra in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07. Thus, ground No.4 is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 16th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1176 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cturing business. However, till date the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that manufacturing business has not been initiated. Under the circumstances, we find very difficult to hold the stoppage of manufacturing activity is due to temporary lull in the business. We further find that assessee’s contention is that since assessee has carried out trading activity, depreciation on plant and machinery should be allowed. We find this plea unsustainable as trading activity has nothing to do with the manufacturing activity. After a lapse of several years the assessee had not been able to start the manufacturing activity. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below in rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to the depreciation. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1174 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Demand u/s 201 (1) read with section 201(1A) in all assessment years - the facts of the case are that during the survey action u/s 133A , it was noticed by the ITO, that the assessee had engaged a UK based Non Resident as Advisor and had paid for AY 2001-02, AY 2002-03, or AY 2003-04, or AY 2004-05 for advisory services rendered by him. As the payment has been made to a non resident and it is covered under “any other sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act”, the two conditions are satisfied to attract the provisions of section 195. Further, the AO discussed the scope of total income as laid down in section 4(2) and section 9(1) (vii) which creates a deeming fiction and income by way of “fees for technical services” payable by resident person, such fees for technical services shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. The AO accordingly passed orders u/s 201(1) r. w. s. 201(1A) and raised demand against the assessee.
HELD THAT:- Considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee for AY 2004-05 dated 02-07-2010. We have, therefore, no option except to follow the order of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. By following the order of the Tribunal dated 02-07-2010, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on merit in all the Four assessment years and quash the impugned order and delete the resultant demand u/s 201 (1) read with section 201(1A) in all assessment years.
The learned CIT(A), was however, justified in holding that the impugned orders of the AO for AY 2001-02 and 2002- 2003 are time barred. The findings of the learned CIT(A) to that extent are confirmed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1173 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... nt of difference of opinion and interpretation of law does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Mere non-acceptability of a clam in law does not justify invoking Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Officer / CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty based on the said Explanation. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd 322 ITR 73 (P&H) . Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not liable to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1228/Chd/2010 is dismissed and in ITA No.1229/Chd/2010 is allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1171 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... bliterated. The said expression in s. 195(1) shows that the remittance has got to be of a trading receipt, the whole or part of which is liable to tax in India. The payer is bound to deduct tax at source only if the income is assessable in India. If income is not so assessable, there is no question of tax at source being deducted.- Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 489 (1999) 239 ITR 587 (SC) and Vijay Ship Breaking Coron. & Ors. vs. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 639 (2008) 14 DTR (SC) 74 (2009) 314 ITR 309 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd.(1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom) impliedly approved. “ 6. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio of this decision which is in favour of the assessee. Therefore, by respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court(supra), we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1170 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... activities and the surplus funds are used for charitable purposes. So, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is engaged in charitable activities and qualify for exemption under section 11.” 6. The cumulative effect of foregoing discussion is that the assessee is entitled to registration under section 12AA as well as approval under section 80G of the Act. 7. At the time of hearing, we were considering as a viable option to restore the entire issue back to CIT(Appeals), but later on, when this issue was discussed in the light of the available material on record, it was thought that this exercise would be neither fruitful for the assessee nor for Revenue. On the other hand, this would increase the burden / litigation unnecessarily. Hence, in the interest of justice, we have taken the above decision by allowing the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 03.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1169 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 19,800/- on computers.” 11. We have heard both the parties and perused material placed before us. We find that the assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 60 on the computer claimed to have been purchased during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer denied the assessee’s claim of depreciation on the ground that the assessee could not produce any evidence in support of the purchase of computer. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee was unable to produce any evidence in support of purchase of computer by the assessee. In the absence of any evidence having been brought on record by the assessee for purchase of computer, in our opinion, the lower authorities were fully justified in disallowing the depreciation in respect of computers claimed to have been purchased during the year under consideration. 12. In result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 16th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1168 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to capital gain tax. In view of the above, the order of the CIT(A) is partly modified and it is held that the compensation received by the assessee is capital receipt not chargeable tax.” 5. Once a view has already been taken by a Respected Coordinate Bench and therein it was held that the amount of compensation received by the assessee had not arosen from the transfer of a capital asset, therefore, not chargeable to capital gain tax. A finding has been given that no asset was transferred and the assessee continued to be the owner of the agricultural land. Hence, the directions given by the Learned CIT(Appeals) to compute the receipt for capital gain tax purpose was modified. 5.1. We respectfully follow the above cited decision and in identical manner modify the directions of the Learned CIT(Appeals) and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 16/ 12 /2010.
............
|
