|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1205 - ITAT AHMADABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nt with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Hoshang D. Nanavati. 9. Question referred to us is answered accordingly. The Division Bench shall dispose of the appeal in conformity with this decision.” 4. Now the appeal is re-heard as per the order of Special Bench as referred above. The Hon’ble Special Bench had already decided that depreciation is statutory allowance admissible to the assessee. But Section 14A deals with only expenditure. Thus, the depreciation being not a part of expenditure is not to be considered for disallowance u/s.14A of the IT Act. Therefore, we respectfully following the decision of Special Bench in assessee’s own case, dated 25.05.2012 delete the addition on account of depreciation. For remaining additions, the ld. Counsel for the appellant’s arguments were not found convincing to us. Therefore, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) to that extant only. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1204 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ax payable under the normal provisions is higher, such amount is the total income of the assessee, otherwise, the book profits are deemed as the total income of the assessee in terms of section 115JB of the Act. Where the total income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined by he legal fiction, namely, the book profits under section 115JB of the Act and not under the normal provisions, the tax is paid on the income assessed under section 115JB of the Act. Concealment of income would have no role to play and would not lead to tax evasion. Therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of disallowance or additions made under the regular provisions. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1203 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... tice issued u/s 263 was ordered by the CIT to be verified by the Assessing Officer then also we find that instant order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable as the CIT could not point out any error in the submissions of the assessee in respect thereto. Though the CIT has quoted the submissions of the assessee that no assessable income was established in the receipt of ₹ 3487.18 lakhs but the CIT has not disputed the said submissions of the assessee. In the above circumstances, the order of the CIT is without jurisdiction inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued in respect of expenses of ₹ 3487.18 lakhs and no error in the submissions of the assessee in respect of receipt of ₹ 3487.18 lakhs was pointed out by the CIT. We, therefore, cancel the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act on 29.3.2012 and allow the appeal of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 28th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as available in the cash flow statement copy of which has been given to the AO and placed at page-10 of the paper book. The AO has produced no material to show that amounts withdrawn had been utilized by the assessee for some other purpose and were not available for deposit. Claim of the assessee has therefore to be accepted. A perusal of the cash flow statement shows that total cash including opening balance, cash withdrawn from bank and rent deposit was ₹ 3,91,426/- out of which ₹ 1,920/- was deposited in Canara Bank and ₹ 1,41,250/- in Citi Bank and balance were drawings of ₹ 2,44,500/- for personal purposes. The AO has given no finding that the drawings were inadequate. Under these circumstances, additions made by AO are not justified. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition and the same is, therefore upheld. 4. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1201 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ltiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act are in the nature of judicial discretion to the Appellate Authority and emphasizing that the order disposing of the appeal shall be a speaking order. The order shall not cryptic but shall be selfexplanatory. Hence, We set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1200 - ITAT
... ...
... ... ..... 012 to 1394/Mds/2012. Since we have decided the original appeals, these duplicate appeals are dismissed as infructuous. C.O. Nos.136/Mds/2012 to 140/Mds/2012 8. These are the Cross Appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Madurai. The grounds raised in these Cross Appeals by the assessee are only to support the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) . As we have decided the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 1390/Mds/2012 to 1394/Mds/2012, these Cross Appeals have become infructuous and hence dismissed accordingly. 9. In the result, ITA Nos. 1390/Mds/2012 & 1391/Mds/2012 are dismissed, ITA Nos.1392/Mds/2012 to 1394/Mds/2012 are partly allowed, ITA Nos.1419/Mds/2012 to 1423/Mds/2012 are dismissed as infructuous being duplicate appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessee in CO Nos.136/Mds/2012 to 140/Mds/2012 are dismissed. 10. Order pronounced in the open Court on Thursday, the 13th day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1199 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ion at higher rate of depreciation i.e. 40%”. Following the said order, it is held that the appellant is entitled to depreciation 40% for the moulds. The Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed the depreciation on moulds accordingly”. We have heard rival submission and perused material available on record. In the given facts and circumstances, Madras High Court’s judgement to in the case of CIT Vs. Falcon Wires P. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case, in or view, tribunal judgement in the case of BPL Refrigeration Ltd. and Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. (supra) are applicable to the assessee’s case, respectfully following them, we would order of the CIT(A) allowing higher depreciation of the rate of 40% on moulds.” 6. Respectfully following the same, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is hereby upheld. 7. In the result, both the appeals, filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 07.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1198 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ate in further appeal is not known while in the AY 2008-09, the ITAT vide their order dated 26th December, 2011 in I.T.A. no.4671/Del./2011 upheld the findings of ld. CIT(A), granting exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order followed this order of the ITAT for the AY 2008-09 in allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In view of the foregoing, especially when the Revenue have not placed any material before us, controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) nor brought to our notice any contrary decision, so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter while claim of the assessee for exemption has consistently been allowed in the preceding years, we are not inclined to interfere. Consequently, ground no.1 in the appeal is dismissed. 6.. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.2 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7. In result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1196 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... On perusal of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), we are convinced that on doubts and suspicion, the AO has treated short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,38,21,924/- declared by the assessee as unexplained credit under section 1961 of the I.T. Act and in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has given cogent reason for directing the AO to accept the short-term capital gain of ₹ 1,34,82,475/- declared by the assessee in the return of income. We, therefore, decline to interfere.” 4. The view taken by the Tribunal was that on doubts and suspicion theAssessing Officer has treated short term capital gain declared by the assessee as unexplained credit under the Act and on the contrary, the CIT(A) has given valid reasons for accepting the short term capital gain declared by the assessee in the return of income. This appeal is concluded by findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1195 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... dicate the receipts thereof along with the audited balance sheet of the assessee Company which indicate that these amounts have been received by cheques and the creditors are holding PANs as per requirement of law. It was a matter of consideration thereof not as a matter of choosing to tax the solitary item when the assessee has filed return of loss amounting to ₹99,00,955. In other words, the Assessing Officer has only assessed the income of these loan creditors by acknowledging that the brought forward losses are to be allowed by creating a NIL demand. On the basis of the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee and the prayer of the learned CIT-DR, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the loan creditors in accordance with the provisions of the I.T.Act after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1194 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... office furniture, information technology, lift, etc. as provided by this assessee, therefore, we hereby confirm the view of ld.CIT(A) that the income in question was to be assessed as “business income”. Resultantly, grounds raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed for both the years. 10. For both the years, Revenue has raised a residuary ground; reproduced below (from A.Y. 2005-06) - 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) held that the income to be business income as against income from house property and accordingly allowed depreciation of ₹ 49,05,491/- and other expenses of ₹ 13,41,742/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee was not eligible for claim of expenditure as well as depreciation. 10.1. Since a view has already been taken in favour of the assessee, therefore in consequence thereof, this ground of the Revenue do not survive, hence dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1193 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nfirming the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee of ₹ 51,999/- to HDFC Bank on overdraft facilities against the interest income received from the Bank of ₹ 35,696/-. 3. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 7. In the appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2005-06, facts and circumstances are identical to the appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04 only difference is about amount of dis-allowance. In the A.Y. under consideration, FAA had confirmed disallowance of interest of ₹ 80,489/-. As the facts and circumstances of the case are similar to the A.Y 2003-04, so, following the order of that Assessment Year, we allow the appeal filed by the AO. Ground No.1 is decided in favour of the assessee. Assessee did not press Ground No.2. Hence, same is treated as dismissed. Appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2005-06 stands Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1191 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he legal aspects discussed by Assessing Officer & CIT(A), on facts we are unable to agree with their action. Section 14A cannot be invoked arbitrarily and Rule 8D cannot be applied without any satisfaction being recorded u/s. 14A(2) as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd 328 ITR 81 (Bombay). There seems to be blind application of section 14A r.w.r 8D just because the assessee claimed exempt income of ₹ 71,706/- as share of profit from JV. We, therefore delete the additions made by Assessing Officer. Considering the smallness of expenditure incurred, which is otherwise required for maintaining corporate structure of the assessee company, we are of the opinion 5% of the exempt income can be disallowed in this year u/s.14A on the facts of the case. AO is directed to modify the order accordingly. Ground is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1190 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t has acquired the shares in SITSIPL. I have perused the said Board Resolution and find that it does not specifically mention that the shares are issued for a consideration. However, in view of the supporting evidence in the form of the Schedule VI which is statutorily required to be followed by every company, I find merit in the AR's submissions and hold that the cost of acquisition in respect of the equity shares in SITSIPL is to be considered at ₹ 10/- as claimed by the appellant. 21. After considering the rival submissions, we agree with the order of the CIT (A). There is evidence that the shares were issued at cost and therefore, assessee is entitled for claiming the cost of acquisition with necessary indexation benefits. Nothing was brought on record to differ from the findings of CIT(A). Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1189 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... entification of the creditors with PAN Nos., copies of balance sheet and bank statements. He further filed affidavits of Kishanlal M.Dayama and Rajesh Kailashchand Vyas which are placed at pages 4&5 and 6&8 dated 12th December, 2011 and 7th December, 2011 respectively as additional documents. When the Bench proposed to set aside the issue to the file of AO since both AO as well as ld. CIT(A) has contended that the assessee has not filed any confirmations and not discussed regarding the bank statements and other documents which are filed before them. Both the parties have fairly conceded that the matter may be set aside to the file of AO for further verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we consider it fit to set aside the issue to the file of AO to give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its claim. 5. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1187 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ture of salary etc. incurred in setting up of the unit which is ultimately abandoned is allowable as revenue expenditure also squarely covers the legality issue. However, we notice that neither from the assessment order nor that of CIT(A)’s order it is forthcoming as to whether the assessee has proved details of expenditure. Further, nothing is coming out whether the assessee had substantiated its claim. Accordingly, for this limited purpose, we deem it appropriate to restore the grounds 4.1 to 4.3 of ITA No.896/Mds/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 to the file of the A.O. who shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assesse who would also be at liberty to lead cogent evidence if any in support of its claim. 14. To sum up, ITA Nos.895,897 & 894-/Mds/2012 are dismissed and ITA No.896/Mds/2012 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 15. Order pronounced in the open Court on Monday, the 10th Day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1184 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Respondent(s) Mr. R.K. Patel, Ms. Manisha T.Karia,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1183 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... as a factor in favour of the assessee. The conclusions of the Tribunal were, therefore, clearly erroneous, contrary to the materials on record and had been arrived at without taking into consideration relevant material and by placing reliance on irrelevant materials. Where the Tribunal acted partly on relevant and partly on irrelevant materials, and it was not possible to say to what extent the latter had influenced its mind, the finding was vitiated because of the use of irrelevant material. The Tribunal had no material to come to the conclusion that the sum of ₹ 3,82,750/- could not be treated as the assessee’s income from undisclosed sources. 10. We find that facts in the present case are also similar to La Medica’s case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A). 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1181 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 03-04 and the order passed by the Tribunal in AY 2003-04 may be followed in deciding the same in AY 2008-09 also. On perusal of records, we find that the issue is similar and the facts of the case in the year under consideration are also identical with that of AY 2003- 04. Therefore, considering the submissions of the parties and in view of our decision in the revenue’s appeal for AY 2003-04, we hereby dismiss ground No.1 of the appeal of the revenue for AY 2008-09. 28. In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.3037/Ahd/20101 for AY 2008-09 is dismissed. 29. In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1186/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04 and in ITA No.1261/Ahd/2011 for AY 2004-05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The other appeals of the revenue in ITA No.165/2012 for AY 2005-06, ITA No.930/Ahd/2010 for AY 2006- 07, ITA No.2393/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007-08 and ITA No.3037/Ahd/2011 for AY 2008-09 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21-09-2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1180 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... (Entertainers and Athletes), 19 (Government service), 20. (Non-Govt. pensions and Annuities), 21. (Students and trainees) and 22. (Professors and Teachers), salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment shall be taxable only in that State unless the employment is exercised in ;the other Contracting State. If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as is derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State”. 9. As per the above Article, the salary income derived by the appellant, who is a tax resident of Philippines, from exercising employment in Philippines shall be taxable only in Philippines. Therefore, salary received by him through KJS India for the employment exercised in Philippines is not taxable in India. Applying this Article, we uphold the finding of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st September, 2012.
........
|
