|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1167 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the business loss is restricted to a period of eight years. As per the provisions of sec. 32 there is no restriction of eight years. This is because the carry forward depreciation is treated as depreciation of the current year. Once this is so, as per the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act this depreciation allowance is liable to be given against any other profits and gains chargeable for that previous year. One should keep in mind that the wordings in sec. 32(2) are “profits or gains chargeable for that previous year” and not “profits and gains of business”. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virmani Industries P. Ltd. does squarely apply even though the provisions of section 71(2A) was introduced, as the allowance is being envisaged u/s. 32(2) itself. In the circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. The order was pronounced in the court on 10/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1166 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rips (1000) 1,43,850.00 Century Textiles (1000) 67,850.00 67,850.00 1,39,750.00 11. Therefore, even prior to the assessment year 2004-05, the aseseee was showing the purchase of shares as investment in the books of account and consequently if Rule of consistency has to be applied. The same should have been applied in the assessment year 2004-05, where the assessee has changed the method of accounting in comparison to the earlier year as well as in the subsequent year. Since there are decisions on both sides on this point, therefore, each case has to be decided on its own facts. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered view that the transactions of sale and purchase by the assessee was in the nature of investment in shares and not trading in shares. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities qua this issue. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Director of Income Tax Exemption . 14.Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order of the Tribunal is in consonance with the principles propounded in the above referred decisions, that is, once an assessee has been granted certificate of exemption under section 12AA of the Act, the conditions laid down under section 12A of the Act stand fulfilled. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, while framing assessment cannot ignore such certificate of exemption and question the eligibility of the assessee for grant of benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to warrant interference. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that the assessee association is entitled to the benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1160 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the same on profit and loss is Nil.” It is found that adjustment is in opening and closing stock and there is no impact on profit and loss account. The issue may be decided in the light of observation made above.” 11. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, we found that revenue has no case on this ground and the addition has rightly been deleted by ld. CIT(A) in which no inference is required to be made from our side. Therefore, this ground is also dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 13. Cross objection filed by the assessee - Ld. AR of the assessee did not press the cross objection and to that extent he has written at the back of form no. 36A “the Cross Objection is withdrawn”. In such a situation, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 14. In the result, the departmental appeal as well as cross objection are dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 22.12.10.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1152 - SC ORDER
Revision- The Tribunal has set aside the order dated August 28, 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar (1) by exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act holding that on the basis of survey report conducted under section 133A of the Act the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on November 14, 2005, by the Assessing Officer cannot be set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax by exercising revisional jurisdiction.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1147 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ders themselves demonstrate that the issue is highly debatable and a conclusion could be arrived at only after examining the mechanical and other technical features of the machine and the character of its functioning. This examination requires verification of materials, details, particulars and application of mind. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that it is a mistake apparent from the records likely to be rectified under sec.154. 9. Accordingly, we hold that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction to exercise his powers under sec.154 on this issue and the order passed by him under sec.154 is not sustainable in law. We allow the cross-objection filed by the assessee. 10. In consequence the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. 11. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 1st of December 2010 at Chennai.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1108 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rofit rate could be estimated. But, the gross profit has to be estimated based on some material. In this case, the assessee has shown a gross profit rate of 16.13% on turnover of ₹ 28.38 crores compared to gross profit rate of 10.81% on turnover of ₹ 26.44 crores in the immediate preceding year. The gross profit rate being more and there being no other comparable cases placed on record by the Revenue, no addition could be made on account of purchase prices being not verifiable. Moreover, in this case, the CIT(A) has given a finding that the AO had made verification of purchase prices with respect to other parties and no adverse material had been placed on record. Nothing has been produced before us by the department to controvert these findings. On the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no addition can be made on account of disallowance of purchases. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly upheld. Order pronounced on the day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1084 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ther reasons . 4. When we examined the said issue, we have noted the findings of the Tribunal in Paragraph 5 of the order impugned in this appeal. The Tribunal has specifically found that in the process of manufacture of Cotton yarn, cotton waste came to be generated and the use of the said waste by another manufacturer shows that it was used as a raw material by the purchaser. Even the learned Departmental representative stated before the Tribunal that the cotton waste disposed of by the respondent-assessee, was re-used as raw material for manufacture of lower count of cotton yarn and it does not come under the definition of scrap as defined in Explanation (b) of Section 206C of the Act. As the said conclusion of the Tribunal having been reached as a finding of fact, we do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law to be considered in this appeal. The Tax Case. Appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is also dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1083 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition made on account of difference in opening balance Held that:- In the assessees paper book, there are several entries and assessee tried to explain that this difference exists from the year 1998-99 - these documents were not examined by Assessing Officer and even the CIT(A) has recorded his finding that the assessee could not explain thus, in the interest of justice, let these documents be placed before Assessing Officer, so he can find out exactly whether the difference is explained or not and accordingly decide this issue the matter remitted back to the AO Decided in favour of Assessee.
Addition made u/s 68 of the Act Addition of gift made Held that:- The assessee received two gifts and the assessee has filed details in respect of said gift received with the Assessing Officer - in the case of Smt. Ritaben Hirpara, the papers should be examined at the level of AO and decide whether the donor has capacity or creditworthiness to give the gift - that they have substantial incomes but AO is free to note the creditworthiness of the donor - As regards to identity, genuineness of transactions both are established by assessee before the lower authorities - to ascertain creditworthiness of the donor the matter remitted back to the AO.
Nothing has been brought in respect of creditworthiness of the donor except confirmation - This being a gift from a non-resident Indian and this document will not suffice to prove the three ingredients as mentioned u/s.s68 of the Act - assessee is only able to prove identity and genuineness of the said transaction but her capacity or creditworthiness of the donor, he has not made any attempt to file the details - the gift received from Mrs. Varshaben Patel having no relationship with the assessee and particularly that the creditworthiness of donor is not established and same cannot be accepted as explained - the addition of the gift upheld added as unexplained u/s.68 of the Act Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1081 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... which is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Pune dated 17.9.2008 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. 27. It was a common ground between the parties that the issue involved in this appeal is identical to that considered by us for the assessment year 2004-05 and therefore, our conclusion therein would apply mutatis mutandis to this year also. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons given by us in the foregoing paragraphs of this order for the assessment year 2004-05, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this aspect and direct the Assessing Officer to treat long term capital gain and short term capital gain as such, and not to treat it as a business income. 29. Resultantly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1080 - ITAT DELHI
Excessive depreciation claimed in respect of building - contention of the assessee is that the payment of these amounts to NDMC was part of the total consideration amount payable by that company to Government of India for taking over of Hotel Kanishka - CIT(A) was of the view that these payments were part of the bid amount submitted by the company at the time of disinvestments of Hotel Kanishka owned by ITDC and these amounts were paid for regularization of procedural lapses and only after payment of these amounts completion certificate of hotel was issued by NDMC - HELD THAT:- The order of the CIT(A) does not require any interference. The same is based on the decision in the case of LOKE NATH AND CO. (CONSTRUCTION) [1984 (1) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which is the subject-matter of detailed discussions in para 3.3 of the order of CIT(A). It must be appreciated that qua the assessee it is only a part of purchase consideration paid and the payments were made to perfect the title of the buyer in the property which it had acquired from the Government of India under the disinvestment policy. The assessee has paid certain amounts which were accepted as part of purchase consideration. The payment of purchase consideration was made to different people having regard to the liabilities of the erstwhile ITDC which was the owner. In fact it could not have had a perfect title to the property which it had purchased, had it not got these things regularized from NDMC by payment of the sums in question - The payments made for perfecting the title or ownership of the business asset represent the expenditure for the purpose of the business and the assessee has rightly capitalized the sums in question which also represent as a part of purchase consideration of the asset.
Excessive depreciation claimed in respect of UPS and printers - AO classified the same as part of general machinery and allowed 25 per cent per annum instead of 60 per cent claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The issue is now concluded by the decision of Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BSES YAMUNA POWERS LLD. / BSES RAJDHANI POWERS LTD. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein their Lordships have agreed with the view of the Tribunal and expressed that computer accessories and peripherals, such as printers, scanners and server, etc. form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer system cannot be used in isolation or without the computer accessories and peripherals. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the assessee’s claim for higher rate of depreciation at 60 per cent - Following the same, there arise no need to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) who directed the allowance of higher depreciation on these peripherals and computer accessories at the same rate as applicable to computers.
Addition of interest income which was added by the AO as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI [2009 (2) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein their Lordships have clearly laid down the principle that when interest earned is inextricably linked with the setting up of the plant, such income is required to be set off against pre-operative expenses. There is no dispute that the interest income earned by the assessee in the instant case is inextricably linked with the setting up of the hotel, the bank guarantees and letter of credit required the margin money and the margin money has been provided in the form of fixed deposit which incidentally earned some interest. Such interest is inextricably linked with the setting up of the hotel and the order of the CIT (A), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be found fault with. The orders of the CIT(A) on this issue in the respective assessment years are confirmed.
Allowability of landscaping expenses - AO was of the view that the term ‘building’ does not specifically include landscaping under the IT Rules and the claim of depreciation on the expenses incurred on landscaping cannot be allowed as deduction - HELD THAT:- The term ‘building’ has not been defined in the Act. The nature of the asset has to be ascertained and we have to understand the meaning of the term ‘building’ depending upon the context to which a reference has been made. Here the assessee is in a hotel business. His building is not merely a structure of four walls but includes all such things as are necessary to give the building a better look and is a matter of attraction for the customers to use it. Having regard to the assessee’s nature of business it cannot be said that the landscaping done by the assessee cannot be considered as a building. After all the assessee has given a better look to this building by provision of this landscaping which has become an integral part of the building to be used as a hotel - The CIT(A) has correctly applied the principle laid down in DELHI AIRPORT SERVICE. [2001 (9) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and also the decision of GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED [1992 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of SOUTHERN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED [1998 (6) TMI 85 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] to give an extended and more meaningful definition of the term ‘building’ - this view is thus agreed upon.
Addition made on account of the liabilities - AO went through the balance sheet and found that certain constant amounts were outstanding from the assessee for more than 3 years and are being carried forward as a liability from year to year and there has been no transaction during the year - HELD THAT:- There are no material to come to a view that the liabilities in question have ceased to exist on the date of the balance sheet. Merely because the accounts have become non-operational or the period of 3 years has expired, it does not mean that such liability has ceased to exist. It is not open to the AO to conclude that such liabilities have ceased to exist. The liability cannot become unenforceable merely because the period of 3 years has expired. Moreover in this case, the assessee has not even written off such liability to its P&L a/c. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no error in the order of the CIT(A) on this point.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1077 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Whether, on the facts and law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the initiation of proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act in all the three years is justified ?
Held that:- We are of the view that the majority view taken by the Tribunal was right and we concur with the same. The Tribunal was fully justified to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer with certain directions. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the same. As a result, the question of law framed is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant resulting into dismissal of these appeals.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1074 - ITAT CHENNAI
Exemption u/s 11 - Cancellation of registration granted to the assessee-trust - acceptance of capitation fees for admitting students to medical, dental and nursing courses - HELD THAT:- In the light of the judgment of the DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS SRI BELIMATHA MAHASAMSTHANA SOCIO CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST [2010 (3) TMI 854 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune "A" Bench in the case of MAHARASHTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (MAEER) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2009 (9) TMI 952 - ITAT PUNE], it is found that the first ground pointed out by the Commissioner of Income-tax to cancel the registration granted to the assessee under section 12A on the accepting capitation fees is not sustainable in law - As extensively discussed in the decision rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, the Commissioner of Income-tax is not to conduct investigation into the sources of donations received by it. Regarding the genesis and character of the money available in the hands of donors to pay capitation fees have to be examined in the hands of those donors. The assessee has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the sources in the hands of those donors. The capitation fees could be unexplained in the hands of the persons making the donations - As far as, the assessee-trust is concerned, the violation is that of Anti Capitation Fees Act which is not a violation under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Therefore enquiries should be made against the assessee through a process permitted under the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Capitation Fees Act. The Income-tax Act cannot be punitive against the assessee on that ground.
Diversion of trust funds for own benefit and for purposes other than the objects for which the trust has been formed and registered - Application of funds - HELD THAT:- There is no case made out by the Revenue against the assessee. As per the details furnished by the assessee-trust, the assessee has spent its entire receipts for the purposes of creating infrastructure facilities to run its educational institutions. The assessee has almost spent its entire collection of donations to construct buildings and other facilities. Such expenditure incurred by the assessee-trust have exceeded the collections made by the assessee-trust by way of the alleged capitation fees, donations, corpus donations and also fees collected from the students. Therefore, there is no de facto case against the assessee that the income has not been applied for educational activities.
Diversion of funds - seizure of cash in the course of search at the registered office of the assessee-trust - HELD THAT:- The reply furnished by the assessee-trust is convincing that the total cash as on the day of search was more than Rs. 90 lakhs ; Rs. 10 lakhs and above alone were found in the office of the registered trust. The registered office of the trust is the residence of the trustees. Therefore, it is very premature to hold that the cash found in the registered office/residential houses amounted to diversion of funds. It is only a holding of funds and not application or diversion of funds. All the balance cash remained with different educational institutions. Therefore, the cash found and seized in the course of search is not a ground to make an allegation that the trustees have diverted the funds of the assessee-trust for activities other than charitable activities - It is established that those funds have not been flown out of the funds of the assessee-trust. The payments were made by Dr. Velayuthan Nair personally. In such circumstances, there is no force in the argument of the Revenue that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs paid by Dr. Velayuthan Nair for his daughter's medical seat, was from the funds of the trust.
Diversion of funds - Payment of huge amount of deposits to Dr.Velayuthan Nair for taking out his hospital property on lease - HELD THAT:- Regarding the functional and legal character of the deposits, there is no case against the assessee. The case could only be in respect of quantum of deposits which according to the Commissioner of Income-tax is highly disproportionate, to the annual rent paid by the assessee-trust. In this context, it is to be seen that the total amount spent by the trust for constructing buildings and facility were about Rs. 90 crores much more than the donations and fees collected by it. It shows that even the lease deposits made by the assessee-trust in the hands of Dr. Velayuthan Nair have been de facto applied for improving the infrastructure facilities of the assessee-trust. Therefore, it becomes application of funds for educational purposes in the hands of the assessee-trust through the medium of the trustee.
Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax are directed to vacate his order cancelling the registration of the assessee-trust and restore the registration granted under section 12AA.
This appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1057 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintained proper books of accounts during the year and such accounts were audited by the Chartered Accountant as required. The assessee filed return of income as per income and expenditure statement and claimed exemption for such income.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1056 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of arrangement under sections 391 to 394 - scheme is nothing but a composite agreement between concerned parties to transfer the passive infrastructure assets without consideration by the transferor company to the transferee company Held that:- Transaction may be held to be void under section 281 of the Income-tax Act and if it is so, the court will not exercise its jurisdiction, if any, to sanction a transaction which is pointed out to be void under law entire tax payable on the market value of the assets to be transferred to Indus is sought to be evaded by the present scheme - stamp duty is sought to be evaded - No VAT shall be payable on the movable assets transferred under the scheme if the same is sanctioned under section 391 which otherwise would have been payable Scheme cannot be sanctioned
-
2010 (12) TMI 1055 - ITAT, DELHI
Addition - Unexplained income u/s 68 - Share capital money - As per the case of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. [2010 -TMI - 76018 - DELHI HIGH COURT], it has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there is no legal obligation on the assessee to produce some director or representative of the applicant companies before the AO, and, therefore, failure of assessee to produce them could not, by itself, have justified the additions made by the AO, when the assessee had furnished documents, on the basis of which, the AO, if he so wanted, could have summoned them for verification - Similarly, merely because directors of share applicant companies were not found available at the addresses given, that by itself is not sufficient for the AO to reject assessee's case when the assessee has furnished all documents relating to share applicants, such as their PAN, details of income-tax assessment, registration of companies under Companies Act and bank details - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1054 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Method - Completed contract method for accounting followed by the assessee for his construction business - The respondent/assessee was regularly following the completed contract method and had not given scope for any complaint in any of the earlier years, it was unnecessary for the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 145(3) of the Act - The Tribunal in regard to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. N.M.Associates, the assessee did not maintain proper accounts, which apparently persuaded the Assessing Authority to invoke Section 145(3) of the Act, by which, the calculation of annual profits on the basis of receipts was held to be justified - Hence, fully concur with the conclusion of the Tribunal - Thus, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed against of revenue.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1032 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Unaccounted purchases - assessee had purchased the duty paid goods and availed of cenvat credit in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- According to the Tribunal, it was the duty of the seller to pay excise duty to the Excise Department which had been done by the seller and, consequently, since the goods had been sold under the proper invoices, the assessee had availed of the cenvat credit of the same. That 10 per cent. of the cenvat credit availed of by the assessee on the basis of the invoices of the sellers was also supported by way of duty paid certificate and subsequently, the goods were cleared by the assessee under ARE-1. sellers were registered with the Central Excise Department which was evident from the bills issued by them to the assessee. As per Tribunal though the parties at the moment are not traceable at the addresses and the Central Excise Department had issued "alert circular", but it is also a fact that the very same Central Excise Department had issued cenvat credit on the basis of the bills issued by the sellers. Not only that, the Central Excise Department after due verification of the said parties, has issued refund at 10 per cent. to the assessee. As Tribunal has given sufficient, cogent and convincing reasons for the conclusion arrived at by it no reason to take a different view. In the circumstances, this ground of appeal is dismissed
Disallowance of claim of export commission - Assessing Officer found that assessee did not furnish any agreement for paying commission nor did it file any proof of such remittance routed through the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The foreign agents'commission was allowable up to 12 per cent. under the Central Excise and Customs Rules, while giving the DEPB benefit, but the same was required to be proved beyond doubt as required by the RBI guidelines - Held that:- Except one party, all other communications were on letter heads of the respective parties. It was further found that none of the payments had come beyond six months, but the same were within six months as could be verifiable from the bank realization certificates enclosed annexed in the paper book. The Tribunal recorded that each of the transactions between the assessee as the seller and the two buyers were mediated by agents, whose existence was established beyond doubt, by the confirmation letters. Secondly, there was rendering of services. The agents had clearly written that they had rendered services ; in procuring samples, deciding the orders and settling all matters between the buyers and seller including payments by the buyers to the seller. The existence of the agents and their functioning was for the benefit of the assessee as well. The Tribunal, accordingly, was of the view that the claim of the assessee towards commission payment deserves to be allowed, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon findings of fact does not give rise to any question of law. This ground of appeal is also dismissed
Eligibility for deduction under section 80HHC - Held that:- Tribunal has recorded that it was admitted by both the sides that the issue needs to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in the light of insertion of clause (iiid) to section 28 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1998. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the Tribunal has decided the issue of eligibility for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act on a consensus and as such, it is not open for the Revenue to challenge the same nor does it give rise to a question of law. In the circumstances, this ground of appeal is also dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 1031 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Approval of registration - Whether the objective of the society is solely for education? - The burden of establishing that an application in Form 56D was filed, as early as on May 31, 2005, lies heavily on the petitioner - Held that:- The jurisdiction exercised by this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and a writ is not issued as a matter of course - While the petitioner would contend that the original objects were amended in the meeting held on August 13, 2009, and were registered with the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is silent as to the date on which the objects were so registered - One of the limitations imposed by this court, on itself, is that it would not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue - It would not allow itself to be turned into a court of appeal to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice. Ex facie some of the objects of the petitioner-society, as it originally stood, are not solely for the purposes of education. In such circumstances no reason to exercise discretion to interfere, set aside the order of the first respondent, and remand the matter for his consideration afresh, only for him to reject the petitioner's application on the ground that their objects are not solely for the purposes of education.
-
2010 (12) TMI 976 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deductibility of interest - disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, firstly, for recording a categorical finding as to whether or not the assessee is engaged in investment in shares for the purpose of holding and controlling interest, and thereafter, for deciding the claim for admissibility of deduction in accordance with law, inter alia, including the law laid down by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Srishti Securities (P.) Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT).
As regards disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- AO's powers to make disallowance under section 14A are not fettered on that count, and except for this variation, the observations made by us while dealing with the assessment year 2001-02 will apply mutatis mutandis for these years as well. We may add that while deciding the issue regarding disallowance under section 14A, the Assessing Officer will, inter alia, bear in mind the principles laid down in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. With these directions, the matters for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 are also remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and the appeals are, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
