|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 689 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Kwality Biscuits Ltd. 8. It is contended that CIT (Appeals) had erred in coming to the conclusion that charge of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature." 6. We find that this issue is now covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. 330 ITR 470 (SC) wherein it has been held that interest u/s 234B and 234C shall be payable for failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable u/s 115JA/115JB. Therefore, we hold that learned CIT (A) has rightly decided that interest is leviable u/s 234B in respect of income computed u/s 115JB. However, ld. Assessing Officer is directed to re- compute that interest on the income which remains finally assessable after giving effect to this order. We direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 13.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 688 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee. It is a case of honest difference of opinion between the assessee and the department regarding allowability or otherwise of certain amount. The CIT(A) has observed that the disallowance was technical and all particulars of income were available in the audit report part of the return of income. The assessee has filed explanation, which could not be said to be not bona fide. In these facts of the case, we hold that since necessary particulars were filed by the assessee before the AO and were part of the audit report and disallowance was technical in nature and the explanation of the assessee was bona fide, the CIT(A) was justified in canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No.504/Ahd/2010 and 505/Ahd/2010 are allowed the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.493/Ahd/2010 is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (4) TMI 687 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... earned CIT(A) having observed that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s.11 of the Act after specifying some other additions had not spelt out the contentions which could only be clarified by the Revenue in their appeals was therefore a question to be settled only after hearing the Revenue’s appeal becomes infructuous to the extent that this issue has been dealt by us and disposed of in the assessee’s C.Os. supporting the orders of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and in accordance with the grounds raised by the Revenue on the factual finding by the learned CIT(A) in favour of the assessee entitled to exemption u/s.11 when the estimated capitation fees has been held fit for deletion by him entitling the assessee the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. 15. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee on the appeals of the Revenue are allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 686 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the donors, it does not justify the imposition of the penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The facts of the case may justify the additions of the gift amounts for taxation purpose in the assessment of the assessee, but are not sufficient to justify the imposition of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are unable to sustain the observations of the CIT(A) that the levy of penalty was mandatory and no discretion, is left with the competent authority. In these facts of the case, we hold that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is accordingly cancelled and the grounds of the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 6 In view of above, following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the case of Leelaben Labhubhai Lakhani Group Case in ITA No.1172 and 1173/Ahd/2009, order dated 02-03- 2012 , we delete the penalty. 7 In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 11-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 685 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ugh ground No.1 iv , Ld counsel for the appellant submitted that the disallowance of interest to the tune of ₹ 394537.00 invoking sec 14A r.w rule 8D is against the law as rule 8D is applicable from 01.04.2007 and it is prospective and further submitted that the AO has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that investments have been made solely out of own funds and not from borrowed funds. Ld DR contended that rule 8D squarely apply to the facts of the case. We have heard rival contentions and find that the AO has erred in applying rule 8D which is prospective and is applicable from 01.04.2007. We, therefore, direct the AO to decide this issue without applying rule 8D after giving assessee an opportunity to explain his contention that the investments are from own funds and not out of borrowed funds. Ground No.1 iv is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed as discussed here in above . Order pronounced on this 11th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 684 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the revenue- appellant. During the course of hearing we asked a pointed question to the learned counsel for the revenue about the status of the judgments rendered by the Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Universal Medicare (P) Ltd. (supra) and Hotel Hilltop (supra) respectively, on which reliance has been placed by the Commissioner Appeals and the Tribunal. There was no satisfactory answer. Learned counsel has not been able to point out that the assessee-respondent fulfilled the basic ingredients of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act so as to warrant addition of ₹ 1,12,44,952/- on account of deemed dividend. We find that no substantive question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise, particularly when the revenue-appellant has not challenged the judgments of Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts. The aforesaid interpretation of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would not, therefore, be open to challenge. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 683 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... cts Ltd.,’ are not available in the public domain. Thus, in our view without proper information relating to the activities carried on by the company ‘India Products Ltd.,’ and also the segmental information relating its income from various sources and activities, the said company cannot be taken as comparable for computing the ALP. According to us, the DRP has not dealt with the issue in a judicious manner. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the AO/TPO for reconsideration of the objections raised by the assessee against the method of computing the ALP i.e what is the most appropriate method, CUP or TNMM and also the comparables adopted by the TPO. Thus, the issues are set aside for denovo consideration. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given ample opportunity of hearing. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 26th Apr, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 682 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pleaded that the assessee should not be allowed the benefit of claiming deduction u/s. 80P. 9. We have heard the arguments and we are of the view that the principle of mutuality is fully applicable and the interest earned on the fixed deposits with the bank and other institutions is fully covered within the parameters of mutuality. We fully endorse the view taken by CIT(A) in the case of Hill Properties Ltd. ITA No. 6223, 6249/Mum/09, that the principle of mutuality cannot be destroyed simply because the funds were not parked with members but with third parties who are not members of the Society. 10. We, therefore, hold that the principle of mutuality is fully applicable and by respectfully following the various decisions relied upon by the assessee and by the Hon’ble coordinate Bench in the case of Hill Properties Ltd., we allow the appeals for both the years. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed. Order pronounced on the 09th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 681 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... area of the site because the same was not available with them at the relevant point of time. In any case, it goes to the root of the issue i.e. size of the plot. Therefore, we, in the interest of justice, admit the additional evidence and restore this issue to the file of the A.O with the direction to decide the actual measurement of the plot for the purpose of allowability of deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) and decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Revenue authorities are at liberty to verify the measurement done by land revenue authorities after providing due opportunity of being heard to all the concerned parties. Since we have restored this issue on the preliminary issue of the measurement of the plot in question, we are refraining from commenting on the merit of the issue. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.rder pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 680 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ad debt may also be a trading loss but a trading loss need not necessarily be bad debt”. 23. We find that the amount charged off to the profit and loss account during the year pertains to the balance receivable from various customers. The amounts pertains to the current year and previous year balances. Hence it is in the nature of amounts which cannot be recovered and charged off, the claim to the extent ₹ 5,79,350/- is to be allowed as deduction. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dayachand Hardilal (1989) (177 ITR 461) (P&H) has held that failure to recover price of certain goods sold under agreement by a selling agent is to be allowed as deduction. Hence, we find that the sum of ₹ 5,79,350/- claimed under discount/rebate is to be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. 24. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/04/2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 679 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tantial error of law in deleting penalty of ₹ 23,42,010/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the appellate Commissioner by totally overlooking the fact that the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were established and was also referred to by the Assessing Officer.
-
2012 (4) TMI 678 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case and it has been held that payment made by the assessee to non-resident companies would amount to royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of the DTAA with the respective countries and there was obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s. 195 of the I.T. Act. We therefore do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), as such we do not find any merit in this appeal of the assessee.” 11. Since the facts of the present case are similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (International Taxation) in ITA No.299/Bang/2011, therefore respectfully following the said order dated 22.03.2012 passed by the ITAT ‘A’ Bench Bangalore, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 677 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... uld summon M/s. Sar Stitchers Pvt. Ltd. or its director, which authorities lies with the AO under the Income-tax u/s 131 of the Act and the same has not been used by the A.O. At the same time, the AO proceeded to conclude the matter purely on arbitrariness, surmises and conjectures to doubt the agreement entered into by M/s. Sar Stitchers Pvt. Ltd; with the assessee alongwith the confirmation of the amount given and taken back. In the absence of any evidence against the assessee or adverse material to rebut the explanation given by the assessee, the AO is not justified to treat the amount of ₹ 53 lakhs as unexplained. The AO, therefore, is directed to accept the claim of the assessee and delete the addition made by her. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to be reversed. Thus, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.444(Asr)/2011 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 675 - ITAT MUMBAI
Delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund and towards ESIC - Held that:- The Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to stated consequences. Insofar as the Income-tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed.
Computing deduction u/s.10A - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee and directing the AO to exclude the expenses both from export turnover as well as total turnover while calculating the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act.
Interest Income - Income From Other Sources OR Business Income - Held that:- Where an assessee invests its surplus funds in order to earn interest and to obviate its funds lying idle, such income would not fall for classification as business income. This is particularly so in a situation where the business of the assessee does not consist in the investment of funds. Where the assessee engages in an independent line of business, interest earned on deposits cannot be regarded as falling under the head of profits and gains of business or profession. Such income would fall for classification as income from other sources.
Computing deduction under section 10A - Held that:- Income from a STPI Unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving the gross total income Loss of a non- STPI Unit cannot be set off against the income of the STPI Unit while computing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. Brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation cannot be adjusted while computing deduction under section 10A of the Act and can be set-off against the income after the completion of tax holiday period. Further the required details have now been made available by the Assessee and it is necessary for the AO to go into the question as to which unit the unabsorbed depreciation pertains to. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and remand the same to the AO for fresh consideration.
-
2012 (4) TMI 674 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s ground is dismissed. 29. Ground 8 relates to computation of book profit u/s115JB of the Act . 30. AO while framing the assessment order calculated the book profit for the purposes of sec 115JB on the basis of the additions made by him in the assessment order . Since we have deleted all those additions made by the AO as per ground 2 , 3 & 6 here in above , we find no room for calculation of book profits on the basis of the impugned additions. 31. Order of the Ld CIT A is reversed on this count and appellants appeal on this ground is allowed . 32. Ground 9 relates to levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act . 33. The issues raised by this ground are consequential in nature and therefore we direct the AO to levy interest u/s 234B & 234D, if any, after giving effect to our order. 34. Ground No. 9 is allowed for statistical purposes. 35. The appeal by the appellant is partially allowed as per above grounds of appeal. Order pronounced on this 3rd day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 673 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... le of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the propositions laid down by this Bench in the case of M/s. B.K. Tex Corp. (supra) and in the case of Mr. Bhagwan Gada (supra), as well as the material found during the course of search and the inflation factor claimed by the assessee and come to an appropriate conclusion. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. Thus, ground no.2, is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. I, therefore, following the reasons given in the case of Mr. Kalpesh B. Gada and another (supra) restore the issue of alleged inflated labour/ job work charges to the file of the A.O. for the fresh adjudication to decide whether the labour charges claimed by the assessee are correct. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes.
-
2012 (4) TMI 672 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... case, relevant record and judicial verdicts, the surplus realized on sale of such land, is not taxable receipts. In view of the above legal and actual discussions, we are of the considered opinion that findings of the CIT(A), based on bare assertions, in the face of documentary evidence, filed by the assessee, to support his claim, as discussed above, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. As the facts and grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 228/Chd/2010 are similar to that of raised in ITA No. 227/Chd/2010, findings given in ITA No. 227/Chd/2010 would apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 228/Chd/2010. 17. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 227 & 228/Chd/2010, the present two appeals of the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th April,2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 671 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... self clearly shows that the motive and intention of the assessee of purchase and sale is to retain the same as investment. Further, when these shares are held and treated in the balance sheet as investment at cost price, then in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit and substance in the appeal of the revenue on this issue. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A), qua, this issue.” o p /o p 7. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue and keeping in view the rule of consistency, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in treating the gains arising from the sale of shares as short term capital gain and not as business income. o p /o p Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are rejected. o p /o p 8. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 18th April, 2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (4) TMI 670 - ITAT COCHIN
Income from lease rent is assessable under the head Income from business - Held that:- The undisputed facts are that the assessee has leased out its plant and machinery in the year 1995. Hence, while considering the claim of the assessee for the years ending 31.3.1996 and 31.3.97, the Tribunal held that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had no present intention to revive its business at appropriate time, as the gap between the year of closure and the years under consideration at that point of time was very narrow.
We are concerned with the assessment year 2007-08 and we have to consider the facts and circumstances prevailing as on 31-03-2007. About 12 years have passed and hence we are in agreement with Ld D.R that the assessee has not brought on record any material to show that it has intention to revive its business activities. AR submitted that steps are being taken to revive the business, yet we are unable to accept his contention for want of supporting materials. Accordingly, in our view, the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal without appreciating the facts prevailing in the year under consideration.
-
2012 (4) TMI 669 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the said Tribunal’s order, has been reproduced under para 12 of this order, while dealing with the same issue in the revenue’s appeal, as adjudicated above. 29. In view of the above legal and fact-situation, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 30. In Ground No. 5, the assessee appellant raised the issue in respect of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is pre-mature in nature and, hence, the same is dismissed. 31. In Ground No.6, assessee challenged the charging of interest u/s 234B, C and D of the Act. In this context, we are of the considered opinion that such charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature and, hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, on the above indicated terms. 33. In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th April,2012.
........
|
