|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1246
... ...
... ... ..... the AO for verification and fresh adjudication in the light of the Visakhapatnam Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transport(Supra). The learned DR on the other hand has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law. In view of the above submissions by both the sides, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication of the issue in the light of the decision cited (Supra) and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Ground of appeal No. 2 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground of appeal No.3 being general in nature is dismissed. 23. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1245
... ...
... ... ..... n (b), therefore, does not also raise any substantial question of law. 9. As held by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, the AO cannot take a different view when the facts and circumstances are identical for all the assessment years. For the assessment year 2006-2007, the assessee has appointed Portfolio Manager for its funds to be invested in the shares, therefore, in view of the decision in case of ARA Trading Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) as well as in the case of ITO vs. Radha Birju Patel of this Tribunal, the investment made in the shares through Portfolio Manager cannot be held as trading when the other factors are also in favour of the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and this Tribunal, we find no error or illegality in the order of the CIT (A). 10. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1242
... ...
... ... ..... considered on merits only after deliberations and further probing into the matter, which is not permissible at this stage. Further, for seeking relief in computation of income, the assessee could have availed to remedies u/s. 154 of the IT Act, but it appears that the assessee did not take any step deliberately before the AO as per section 154 of the IT Act. It may also be noted here that the Tribunal has not admitted the additional ground of appeal above, before finally deciding the appeals. Therefore, the request of the assessee could not be considered legally at this stage. Considering the above discussion in the light of the fact that the appeal of the assessee has already been dismissed on merits, we are not inclined to admit the additional ground of appeal so raised above. In the result, the application for admission of additional ground is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee to the above extent also is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... ming the disallowance of interest expense is concerned, the opinion expressed was that no prudent financial institution would have ventured to advance such a huge sum as non-interest loans keeping aside its business feasibility. It was a general observation based upon a probability, however, there was no finding that the facts were either false or deliberately concealed. Due to this reason, we hereby hold that the ld.CIT(A) has rightly directed to delete the penalty on this amount. Resultantly, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed that too for statistical purposes. 16. We summarize the result as under - (1) Assessee s appeal ITA No.1528/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1994-95 is allowed for statistical purposes. (2) Assessee s appeal ITA No.1529/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1996-97 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (3) Revenue s appeal ITA No.1603/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1993-94 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (4) Revenue s appeal ITA No.1604/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1994-95 is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1238
... ...
... ... ..... peal. 3. Having perused the documents on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the revenue, we notice that the Tribunal had though confirmed the view of the revenue authorities with respect to the rejection of the books of account of the assessee, did not accept the re-computation of higher rate of gross profit on the premise that the average gross profit rate of last three years immediately preceding the year under consideration came to 14.79%. On such basis, the Tribunal found that the claim of gross profit rate @ 15.27% cannot be stated to be low. On such basis, the assessee's appeal was allowed. 4. We are of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence on record and are purely factual in nature. The Tribunal after taking into account relevant materials, came to the conclusion that a certain rate of gross profit presented by the assessee was acceptable. 5. In our view, therefore, no questions of law arise. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... lease effected by the respondent/company should be construed as one executed on behalf of the shareholders. Notwithstanding the fact that the lease deed may not refer to that effect. Therefore, it is to be held that the shareholders are the owners of the specific portion of the building allotted to them and the company which executed the lease deed, has not retained any part of rent amount or rent deposit and after deducting the tax and maintenance has distributed the income to the shareholders proportionately to their shareholders. The shareholders have also filed returns disclosing the said income and paid the tax. In the given situation, it cannot be argued that the respondent/company deemed to have derived the income from rental and rental deposit. In that view of the matter, the first question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and as a consequence, the second and third questions of law would not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1231
... ...
... ... ..... e service tax collected by it, not debiting the same to its Profit & Loss A/c as an expenditure nor claiming any deduction in respect of the said amount, the question of disallowing the same under section 43B does not arise. No contrary decision was brought to our notice. Therefore, respectfully following the principles laid down in the above said decision, we hold that the amount of service tax collected by assessee cannot be considered as disallowance under section 43B, even if not paid to government at end of year. 12. However, as submitted by assessee an amount of ₹ 2,92,800/- paid by assessee but charged to Profit & Loss A/c wrongly, requires disallowance. Therefore, AO is directed to restrict the disallowance of ₹ .2,92,800/- and the balance of ₹ .1,34,989/- should be deleted. With these directions the ground is considered allowed. 13. In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1226
... ...
... ... ..... the present case. Admittedly, in the present case no cash deposit has been found. There was unexplained expenditure, which is evident from the record and the facts narrated by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order and the same are not disputed by the ld.AR of the assessee. These facts clearly shows that there is unexplained expenditure or investment to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- between 1.4.1999 to 21.8.1999 by showing negative balance of Rs,2,47,947/- on 27.8.1999 in its cash books. These facts have duly been highlighted by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is legally and factually correct in confirming the addition of Rs.2,65,668/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act. We are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly confirm his order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1224
... ...
... ... ..... he judgment dated 26.4.2011 of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Swayam Consultancy Private Ltd. v. ITO, Tax Appeal No.62 of 2011 and of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court India Del (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 250 CTR (Del) 344 are quite apposite. 7. As evident from the aforesaid discussion, relief u/s 10B is not available record to establish that the goods of specified nature have really been exported out of India by him. The assessee does not therefore satisfy the primary condition of having exported specified goods out of India and is therefore not entitled to relief u/s 10B on the sole basis that it has sold goods of specified nature to 100% EOU or received their sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and is accordingly reversed. Resultantly, the order of the Assessing Officer in this behalf is restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed. Order pronounced on 28-09-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... who has to decide as to where the cash should be transferred. The evidence that the appellant had at the time of search itself explained that such cash was out of the cash balance as per the books of Mumbai and it is recorded in the said cash book is sufficient to prove that the cash was duly accounted for. Considering all these aspects, I hold that the addition of ₹ 25 Lacs made by the A.O. deserves to be deleted. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 4. Against the said order of the CIT (A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has affirmed the findings of the CIT (A) by judgment dated 3.9.2010 and has held that the employee of the assessee who was present at the time of search had explained the details of cash which was belonging to the assessee itself. 5. We do not find that the question proposed by the revenue raises any substantial question of law. This appeal is concluded by finding of facts and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... uo;hire” used in entry No. III (2)(i) of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962, only means that the use of the vehicle is not by the owner himself for his own purpose, but is given to another for use for a limited period of that other, for a consideration. The Madras High Court held that there is no qualitative difference between lease of the vehicle for a specified period for consideration and letting the vehicle on hire for short duration on payment of hire charges. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal holding that that it was leasing out its vehicles as a part of its business and allowed the higher rate of depreciation, of 40%. In the circumstances, we find no question of law let alone a substantial question of law falling for consideration in this appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1221
... ...
... ... ..... ted principle that eventhough strictly speaking in Income Tax proceedings, the principle of res judicata does not apply, the principle of consistency is required to be followed. Furthermore, the assessee had explained the inventory and differentiation in the figures of stock with satisfactory reasons. 6.1 The findings and conclusion recorded by the Tribunal are proper. It rightly treated justifiability or otherwise of the reopening of assessment to be academic as the addition itself was deleted. Even viewing the legality of action of reopening by the assessing Officer, he acted on same facts and material which was before him and had also raised query on the issue in course of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, he was not justified in assuming the power to reopen the concluded assessment. 7. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... devoid of legally sustainable basis. Once Assessing Officer does not challenge genuineness of a transaction, it cannot be open to him to alter the date of purchases, as claimed by the assessee, and once this date remains unchallenged, there is no basis for hearing the capital gains as a short-term capital gain. There is not even a whisper of an allegation about genuineness of the transaction even though it is a case of, what is commonly known as, penny stock and the value of the shares has gone up almost 40 times within one year. On these facts, the Assessing Officer does not question or probe genuineness of transaction and yet claims that these gains should be treated as short-term capital gains. We leave it at that. 5. For the reasons set out above, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) and decline to interfere in the matter. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court today on 14th Sept., 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1216
... ...
... ... ..... ietor of the trademark 'EXIDE' and the defendant No. 1 cannot infringe the trademark of the plaintiff and sell its goods or have a trade name with having the trademark 'EXIDE' of the plaintiff or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. Plaintiff is also the prior user of the trademark in India and, therefore, owner of the trademark 'EXIDE' in India inasmuch as defendant No. 1 has failed to plead and prove existence of special circumstances. The selling of goods by the defendant No. 1 under the trademark 'EXIDE' and also the proposed sale thereof by use of the trademark 'EXIDE' is illegal, and therefore, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are injuncted from in any manner selling their goods or having their trade name with the trademark 'EXIDE' of the plaintiff or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. The suit and counter-claim are accordingly disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1215
... ...
... ... ..... AO to decide the same afresh in the light of our observations hereinabove and according to law including the recent decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Asian Star Co.Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s J.V. Electronics Pvt.Ltd.(2011)16 taxmann.com 319(Del) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly al lowed for statistical purposes.” 25. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for an earlier assessment year, and following the precedence, this ground is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to decide the same in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal as aforesaid an accordingly, this ground is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th September 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... er of Income Tax vs. Bhari Information Tech. Sys. P. Ltd., reported in 2012 340 I.T.R. 593. No order as to costs. S.L.P. (C) No.24659/2011, S.L.P. (C) No.28760/2011 and S.L.P. (C) No.28762/2011 In view of the afore-stated order passed by us today in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.22881 of 2011, these special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... 02-03. The question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue relates to the determination of the quantum of income attributed to India in respect of the assessee; the question of law sought to be urged by the assessee pertains to its chargeability to tax on the ground that it carries on business activities in India. The Tribunal followed the previous order made by it in respect of the present assessee for the years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The appeals against that order were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25.02.2009 in ITA 1048/2008, 1049/2008, 1050/2008, 1051/2008, 1052/2008, 1053/2008, 1054/2008 and 1055/2008 and connected cases. It is not in dispute that appeals are pending by special leave before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 25.02.2009, in Special Leave Petition No.35621/2009 and 25628/2008. The factual matrix being the same and the questions of law also being identical this Court disposes of these appeals in terms of the said judgment dated 25.02.2009.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1209
... ...
... ... ..... mar, Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1207
... ...
... ... ..... rror in treating the amount as trading receipts. The amount was disbursed to the assessee in pursuance to the Government order dated 29.6.1999. The undisbursed amount has been adjusted by the Government towards payment of Students Concession subsidy to be paid to the assessee in accordance with the Government instructions vide G.O.Ms No.44 dated 24.3.2009. The assessee has been appropriating the amount as per the directions of the State Government. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that by no stretch of imagination the undisbursed amount of ₹ 7.29 crores received by the assessee in the year 1999 towards the terminal benefits of the employees can be treated as trading receipts in subsequent assessment years. 7. We, therefore, for the reasons recorded above, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 25th day of September, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1206
... ...
... ... ..... that context, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that by making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 13. If we apply the above decision as well as the decisions discussed hereinabove to the facts of the case before us, we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty in the case of the assessee is not justified merely because the claim of the assessee has been rejected by the department. We are of the considered view that the assessee has stated all the details of the loss claimed and the assessee has made only an incorrect claim bonafide and this cannot tantamount to furnishing any particulars of income by the assessee. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, we cancel the levy of penalty by allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 14. the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. In Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Sept., 2012 .
........
|
