|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 3921 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 966 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search and seizure - Undisclosed income - Revenue contended that transaction recorded in seized diary had not been duly accounted for in the books of account of the assessee - Held that:- Tribunal rightly remanded back the file to AO on ground that merely on the ground that cheques were found entered in the diary, which was actually not received or recorded in regular book on subsequent date, cannot be made the basis for making the addition, unless some contrary material is found by the department.
ITAT had observed that each cheque number, date of clearing and the name of the party from whom cheque was received was noted in the diary were duly found to be entered in regular books. Merely because there was some difference in the date of actual realization of cheques or actual sending cheques by the customers as compared to the date on which customers have assured for sending such payment, cannot be made the reason for treating the same as unaccounted income of the assessee - Decided against the Revenue
-
2010 (12) TMI 965 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Amounts paid by the Samitees to the State Agriculture Produce Markets Board under statutory obligation - whether it is application of its receipts entitling exemption under section/allowance from the income - Held that:- Mandi Act envisages market areas in the State and the Samitis to govern it. The Samities are a body established and incorporated under section 12 of the Mandi Act - The amount of Mandi Shulk as well as Development Cess sent by the different Mandi Samitis to the State Agricultural Produce Market Board is a utilisation of all the receipts.
The amount of Mandi Shulk as well as Development Cess sent by the different Mandi Samitis to the State Agricultural Produce Market Board is a utilisation of all the receipts and the Tribunal as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly deleted the addition.
-
2010 (12) TMI 964 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
unaccounted Cash credit - AO contended that where the creditor did not maintain any personal books of accounts, the Assessing Officer is entitled to enquire and satisfy himself about the sources of money in the hands of the creditor - Held that:- As creditor had admitted to have advanced the money to the assessee, the source of money deposited in the bank account out of which the money was advanced to the assessee was not explained. The mere statement that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was saved out of house-hold expenses is bereft of substance. The lady creditor does not have any source of income and therefore, accumulation of Rs.40,000/- cash, advanced to the assessee, routed through bank account is not satisfactorily explained - substantial question of law is answered against the assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 962 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - no sufficient cause was shown for such delay - rejection order of this matter was taken up before the Tribunal wherein Tribunal held that the explanation for belated application under Section 12A was to be accepted and delay should be condoned. It also held that registration should be granted from the inception of the trust i.e., from 1.4.1999 retrospectively - Held that:- Rejection of the application of 2005 was on the ground that Director of Tax (Exemption) had rejected the application in 2002 and similarly the reason for allowing the condonation of delay,thus present appeal has to be disposed of by remanding the matter back to the tribunal to dispose appeal afresh, appeal is disposed of. Also make it clear that tribunal shall consider the application dated 21.9.2006 for registration under Section 12A of the Act only from 2002-03 onwards and all contentions are kept open.
-
2010 (12) TMI 961 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund - whether tax admittedly paid by the petitioner-assessee by way of TDS in respect of the alleged interest payable to IDBI, which interest had, in fact, never accrued to IDBI and hence, was not its income liable to tax, could be refunded to petitioner-assessee? - Held that:- As interest had never accrued in IDBI's favour and further that the IDBI has no objection to the return of interest to petitioner-assessee, in view of judgment in Universal Cables Ltd. (2009 (6) TMI 913 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT), respondent are directed to refund the tax which was paid by way of TDS for the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively to the petitioner-assessee. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 959 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80HHC on the face value of DEPB allowed in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of second, third and fourth provisos to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 - Held that:- As identical appeal being Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s F.C. Sondhi and Company (P) Ltd.(2010 (8) TMI 420 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) filed by the revenue was allowed by this Court and the matter remanded to the Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in same terms.
-
2010 (12) TMI 958 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment allowance - denial of claim on the ground that the aerated waters manufactured by it contained blended flavouring concentrates - Held that:- Synthetic essences are clearly blended flavouring concentrates - amendment that was effected in the year 1988 for the purpose of introducing an explanation under Entry No.5 with the proposed amendment seeks to provide that the blended flavouring concentrate appearing in item 5 would include synthetic essence in any form - amendment was made effective from 1st April, 1 988, therefore, does not in any way have the effect of denuding the original entry of a part of it's content. The synthetic essence being but one form of a blended flavouring concentrate was a blended flavouring concentrate before the amendment as also after the amendment. The order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee, despite being engaged in the manufacture of a product which is covered by Entry 5 of the eleventh schedule, is entitled to investment allowance, therefore, cannot be sustained. In favour of revenue.
-
2010 (12) TMI 957 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Registration under Section 12AA seeked - Form 10G for grant of approval under Section 80G - appellant, by one line order, rejected the stand of the respondent, the appellant merely lodged the application of the respondent - Held that:- There is a statutory mandate imposed on the appellant to pass an order in writing either registering the trust/institution or refusing to register the trust/institution. There cannot be any order in between like lodging the application, there was no deemed registration under Section 12AA(2) the orders of the Tribunal as well as that of the appellant are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellant for fresh disposal on merits. The appellant is directed to take up the application for registration of the respondent and pass orders, one way or the other, question of law is answered in favour of the appellant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 955 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Subsidy received - ITAT deleted the addition by treating the Agro based subsidy received by the assessee as tax free capital receipt - assessee is engaged in manufacture of yarn - AO disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27.1.1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16.11.1994 – Held that:- Subsidy was given for setting up of industrial unit in backward area of Haryana and was to be determined with reference to capital investment. In such a situation, the plea of the assessee was supported by the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) which has been followed by the Tribunal
Excess payment made to sister concern on account of purchases within the meaning of provisions of sec.40A(2) - addition on the ground that the assessee had paid higher rate to its sister concern while purchasing cotton and waste – Held that:- CIT(A) upheld the plea of the assessee that the payment was not higher than the normal rate. It was held that the goods purchased at lesser rate were of inferior quality, the details filed by the assessee showed that its sister concerns were being taxed at the same rate at which the assessee was being taxed, proving that there was no reason for the assessee to show higher rate purchases made by the assessee from its sister concerns. The assessee's sister concern had offered their income from such sales, which fact has not been disputed, AO erred in invoking the provisions of S.40A(2)and the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance, no substantial question of law arises, appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Renewal of Exemption under Section 80G denied - application was rejected on the ground that the assessee was forcing the parents of the students in the school to give donation. It was also alleged that the assessee had indiscriminately issued Certificate under Section 80 G of the Act - It appears from the orders dated 16th January, 2008 passed by the DIT that the DIT treated the said application for exemption filed by the respondent seeking exemption w.e.f. 1st April, 2007 - Held that:- While withdrawing first application, the assessee had sought liberty to file fresh application. In these circumstances, the presumption of the DIT that the second application was for the period started from 1st April, 2007 is totally fallacious. Mr. Aggarwal has also submitted a chart showing the period from which the assessee has been given exemption under Section 80G. It would be of interest to note that even for the period from 1st April, 2008 to 31st March, 2010 the assessee has already been granted exemption under Section 80G of the Act vide orders dated 31st December, 2008. This would also demonstrate that application which was preferred by the assessee seeking exemption was for the period from 1st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2008 and not for 1sat April, 2007 as the assessee would not like to keep the period from 1st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007 in vacuum when the assessee has shown its due diligence in seeking exemption even for subsequent years.
-
2010 (12) TMI 953 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Disallowance made under Section 40-A (3) even when the appellant had produced receipt on record to prove that each payment constituted a different transaction - when the income of the assessee was computed applying the gross profit rate and when no deduction was allowed in regard to the purchases of the assessee, there was no need to look into the provisions of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). No disallowance could have been made in view of the provisions of Section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) as no deduction was allowed to and claimed by the assessee in respect of the purchases. When the gross profit rate is applied, that would take care of everything and there was no need for the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the amount incurred on the purchases by the assessee Whether the Assessing Officer after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and having computed the income of the assessee on best judgment assessment basis, by applying the principle of percentage of profits, is entitled to add back the amounts allegedly paid in violation of Section 40A(3) by relying upon the same rejected books of accounts - though the books of accounts of the assessee have been rejected, the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding back the amounts which were found to be paid in violation of Section 40A(3). The second question is answered in favour of the assesee. The appeal is allowed to this extent. No costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 952 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Education fund and subscription paid to Haryana State Cooperative Development Federation disallowed - Held that:- Details furnished by the assessee before AO clearly are to the effect that the education fund related to assessment year 1992-93 and the subscription related to financial year 1992-93, assessee has claimed expenditure on account of subscription to the extent of 14,12,689. From the details it is noticed that a sum of 25,000 paid to Haryana State Coop. Development Federation for education fund relates to assessment year 1992-93 and an other some of 6,19,671 paid to Haryana State Coop. Development Federation as subscription also relates to financial year 1992-93. Both these amounts are disallowed being not the financial year 1993-94, however, is allowed as deduction. Total disallowance under this head works out to 6,44,672, the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting. In such situation, the deduction claimed could not be allowed in the year of payment but in the year when the amount were due
Disallowance of depreciation - auditors of the assessee objected to machinery being kept idle, resulting in loss of interest on investment, the stand of the assessee that the said machinery was installed to increase capacity of the plant, was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) – Stand of the assessee is that it resulted in increase of capacity of the plant and that on account of technical justification for the said machinery, items of the machines were installed. - Held that:- Even though the auditors may not have accepted the said stand, the assessee was entitled to free play in joints in taking a decision to install the machinery if in its view the same was necessary for its business. If the assessee was to install such a machinery on its bona fide business consideration, mere absence of proof of actual use thereof was not enough to deny the claim for depreciation -no ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal, holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the machinery, as claimed, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 951 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Additions under section 68 - assessee obtained 25 advance licenses from DGFT under DEEC scheme for duty free imports, has grossly over invoiced export of CD ROMs to show its export obligations as having been fulfilled. It was alleged in the aforesaid report that the assessee had partly sold a few of these licenses to various importers for duty free imports - ITAT confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting additions - Held that:- Charges of over invoicing have not been conclusively proved by the Revenue. The evidence put forth in this regard can utmost be said to be in the realm of speculation, there is no allegation of any Hawala payment or any evidence that the proceeds received were in respect of anything other than the export of goods in question, liability accepted by the assessee is only in respect of non-fulfillment of export obligation which in any case has nothing to do with sales already made for which addition has been made, no infirmity in the approach adopted by the ITAT in upholding the order of the CIT(A) which was passed in accordance with the final order of the Settlement Commission as the same has been impliedly accepted by the Revenue. Against revenue.
-
2010 (12) TMI 950 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(a) - Failure to furnish returns - assessees submitted that they could not file the return as the assessment of the firm was not finalized, pleaded that they were under the impression that their income are below the taxable limit. Plea that no penalty could be levied on them as the penalty has also been levied on the firm - Held that:- Tribunal has recorded findings of fact holding that there were sufficient reasons for the assessees for non filing the return within time, the assessment of the firm was not finalized and the assessee has share income from firm M/s Jagan Nath and Co. no legal error in the order under appeal and hold that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) setting aside penalty order - no substantial question of law is involved.
-
2010 (12) TMI 949 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Proviso to section 14 A - whether does not apply to the revisionary powers under section 263 - Jurisdiction of CIT(A) - Held that:- Section 14-A deals with the expenditure incurred in relation to income not includable in total income. However, the proviso has come into existence only with effect from 11.5.2001 but section 14-A was brought in by Finance Act of 2001 with retrospective effect 1.4.62. In that view of the matter, the Income Tax Commissioner while exercising powers tender section 263 of the Act was justified in saying the expenditure attributed to taxable income is allowable and what is attributable to non-taxable income cannot be allowed as deduction. The CIT(A) was right in directing the assessing officer to compute the interest, which could not be allowed as against the exempted income being a share in the profit on the capital investment by the individual partners. Even after remand by the High Court, the appellants-assessees were not able to bring on record the facts clarifying the position. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in saying that the facts have to be clarified before the assessing officer while proceeding with the matter as directed by CIT.
All cases relied upon by the appellants doesnot applies to the facts of the present case and the Tribunal has appreciated the case on hand in accordance with the provisions of section 14-A including the proviso to section 14-A. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue.
-
2010 (12) TMI 948 - DELHI HIGH COURT
DTAA between India and Korea - whether the contract in question is not a composite one and, therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay tax in India in respect of offshore service? - Held that:- Mere existence of a PE could not constitute sufficient business connection to take the PE as a taxable entity more so, as the cl. (a) of Expln. 1 to s. 9(1)(i) of the Act emphasizes that only such part of the income as is attributable to the operations carried out in India could be taxed in India - In the instant case there was no operation qua the agreement for supply of equipment, which was carried but in India, and therefore, no income could be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India whether directly or indirectly or through any business connection in India - The title to the equipment supplied from outside India was transferred in favour of PGCIL outside India .
In the instant case as in the case of Ishikawajma (2007 (1) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT) would be said to have been successfully performed only after the satisfactory commissioning and erection of the plant and equipments. Since the PE was not at all involved in the transaction of the offshore supply of equipment, the existence of the PE [which as held in Ishikawajma (supra) is for the purpose of assessment of income of a nonresident under the DTAA], would be irrelevant in the instant case. Clause (a) of Expln. 1 to s. 9(1)(i) would not be attracted at all which provides that in the case of a business where all operations are not carried out in India, the income of the business deemed under this clause to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India. In the instant case there was no operation qua the agreement for supply of equipment, which was carried but in India, and therefore, no income could be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India whether directly or indirectly or through any business connection in India - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2010 (12) TMI 947 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation - AO asked the assessee to explain on what basis the assessee was claiming depreciation on this unit, which remained closed - assessee had submitted that the unit at Bhopal remained dormant and could not function due to various reasons - for the asst. yr. 1998-99, the WDV of any block of assets shall be the aggregate of the WDV of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year - Held that:- As per amended s. 32, deduction is to be allowed in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the WDV thereof as may be prescribed as per Circular No. 469, dt. 23rd Sept., 1986 thus it is difficult to accept the submission of the Revenue that for allowing the depreciation, user of each and every asset is essential even when a particular asset forms part of 'block of assets'. It is also essential to point out that the Revenue is not put to any loss by adopting such method and allowing depreciation on a particular asset, forming part of the 'block of assets' even when that particular asset is not used in the relevant assessment year. Whenever such an asset is sold, it would result in short-term capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to Revenue either - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2010 (12) TMI 946 - DELHI HIGH COURT
LTCG or STCG - Slump sale or sale of a depreciable asset - profit arose on transfer of Sonepat Unit by the assessee would be to be treated as long term capital gain or short term capital gain as treated by the AO - Held that:- When an undertaking is sold, it is to be understood in contra-distinction, a whole of undertaking. From this itself, it would clearly follow that Section 50 dealing with the depreciable asset would not be applicable when the entire Sonepat Unit as a going undertaking was sold by the assessee - the judgments cited by the Revenue would have no application in the instant case. Commonwealth Trust Limited (1997 (7) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court) was a case where the assessee was possessed of considerable property at Calicut and Mangalore, it had claimed depreciation for its factory building which had been allowed in the previous years. During the period relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee had sold some those properties on which it had already claimed depreciation. It was in this context, the question of applicability of Section 50 arose. The depreciable properties were sold and that was not a case where the entire undertaking as a going concern with locked stock barrel was sold by the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2010 (12) TMI 944 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction under Section 80HHC disallowed - whether the professional charges received by the appellant would fall under explanation (baa) below Section 80HHC? – Whether Tribunal was right in law applying the Explanation (baa) in respect of receipts for rendering composite services consisting of procuring order supervising production and quality and ensuring shipment in time when the said Explanation deals only with the receipts in the nature of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature? - Held that:- Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority have not applied the principles of Ejesdum Generis which has been pressed into service to the facts of the case and if applied it would lead to a situation where the assessee would be entitled to project an erroneous figure relating to "Export Profits" which is not the intention of the law makers. This amount which is claimed as deduction under Section 80HHC by the Assessee would not constitute sale proceeds from exports, assessee in question except procuring the export order has not carried on any activity which has nexus to the export in sofar as the receipt of amount of Rs. 18,45,733/- is concerned, question answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee
Bifurcate the professional charges between procuring order and rendering other services so as to exclude only that part of professional charges as attributable to procuring order in computing profits of the business - Held that:- When the AO selected the case for scrutiny proceedings and raised queries as to why 90% of the professional charges has not been reduced out of "profits of the business". The assessee has submitted the letter dated 29.1.2003 and contended that these receipts are considered as business income and related to expenses are considered as business expenses. The assessee himself has stated that he will not be able to bifurcate this part of the expenses separately since administrative set up and market set up are common to export business and this activity of indirect exports - AO has deducted 90% of the professional charges received from, profits on business by reducing 10% towards charges attributable to procuring the order and thus question Nos. and 4 formulated hereinabove is to be answered in the affirmative namely Tribunal was right in not issuing any directions to the Assessing Officer to bifurcate professional charges between procuring order and rendering other services so as to exclude only that part as attributable to procuring order in computing the profits of the business.
-
2010 (12) TMI 940 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Residential status - assessee claimed his residential status as "non-resident" - Held that:- Going abroad for the purpose of employment, therefore, means going abroad to take up employment or any avocation as referred to in the circular, which takes in self-employment like business or profession, taking up own business by the assessee abroad satisfies the condition of going abroad for the purpose of employment covered by Explanation (a) to section 6(1)(c) of the Act, Tribunal has rightly held that for the purpose of the Explanation, employment includes self employment like business or profession taken up by the assessee abroad.
No controversy on the facts inasmuch as the assessee was in India for only 177 days in the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1989-90, and unless it is established that Explanation (a) to sub-clause (c) of section 6(1) of the Act is not available to the assessee, he cannot be treated as a resident in India for the purpose of assessing his global income including the business income earned abroad during the previous year - dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
............
|
