|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1179 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 32 ITR 608 held that revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised only when the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. As stated, the present assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The decision relied upon by the Ld. DR in the case of Blowell Auto (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) is clearly distinguishable because in that case, in the affidavits, no specific source of income was mentioned whereas in the case before us, the creditor had clearly stated that they are deriving income from agricultural sources. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the same could not have been stated to be revisionary order. Accordingly, we quash the order u/s 263 of the Act. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 24th day of September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1178 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 12 lakhs are concerned we find the same was received by the assessee from Mr. Sharma for unauthorised and illegal occupation of the property at Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi as per direction of the court. We find the issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) wherein it has been held that "mesne profits awarded under decree by way of compensation for wrongful possession of property after termination of leave and licence agreement is capital receipt not chargeable to tax". Ground of Appeal Nos. 7 and 8 are accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 20. So far as the ground relating to award of costs we do not find any merit in the above ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1176 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rdquo; to be fresh and the possibility of demolition of erstwhile building for construction/ renovation of new building cannot be ruled out. Thus, we find that it is only a doubt and not a conclusive proof of construction. We agree with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that no evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer that assessee has constructed/ renovated the house property during the year under consideration. The Municipal Committee and Electricity Department records showed that the house property was constructed by the year 1998. We further note that Assessing Officer has not referred the matter to the DVO. Hence, reliance on doubtful statement given by the LIC Valuer cannot be the basis of addition made in this regard. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 8. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1175 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rstwhile Section 32(1 A) was put on the Statute. For the above reasons, we therefore, are of the view that Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) does not come in the way of allowing the present assessee's claim for deduction of the impugned expenditure as a revenue expenditure.” 9. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that in this case assessee has not incurred capital expenditure. The expenditure incurred cannot be said to be adding to the space or the capacity of hotel. The expenditure was only to preserve and maintain existing assets. The Assessing Officer has himself found that the expenditure was for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the hotel. Such expenditure in our considered opinion cannot be said to be capital in nature. Hence, we set aside the orders of authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1174 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction for Co-operative Society u/s80P(2)(a)(i). - Assessee, a cooperative society derives income from providing credit facilities to its members only. They claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Referring to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 the AO held that the assessee fulfils all the criteria laid down in s. 5(ccv) and is consequently a primary cooperative bank, thus is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). - HELD THAT:- Cooperative society is distinct and separate from the cooperative bank and is not a primary cooperative bank within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the assessee cooperative credit society is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Decision in the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4) VERSUS JANKALYAN NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. [2012 (9) TMI 288 - ITAT, PUNE], relied upon
Decision in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1173 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ght by learned counsel to do the needful. The prayer is allowed. The process fee as well as spare copy be deposited with the Registry within four weeks from today, subject to payment of ₹ 2,000/- as costs. The costs shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d CIT (A) and reject ground of appeal taken by the department.” 4. To maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal in deciding this issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Regarding Ground No.2, at the time of hearing the learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that this issue of addition u/s 41(1) as raised in the ground no.2 by the Revenue does not arise from the impugned order. He has further pointed out that this issue was in fact involved in the assessment year 2006-2007 and not in this year. He has referred the assessment year 2006-2007 and submitted that the AO disallowed this amount of ₹ 19.60 lakhs u/s 41(1) for the assessment year 2006- 2007. The learned DR has not disputed this factual position. Accordingly, we dismiss ground no.2 being not emanating from the impugned order. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1171 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... (1994) (SC) 2393), 7. New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram (1976) 3 SCC 407, and 8. Order of Hyderbad B Bench of this Tribunal dt.16.7.2010 in ITA No.1081/Hyd/09 in the case of M/s.Parnika Construction Pvt. Ltd. 13.2. On careful analysis of the decision of the learned CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the decision given by the learned CIT(A) is well reasoned one and is in accordance with the various judicial pronouncements relied on by the learned CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the said order of the learned CIT(A) requiring interference. Therefore, we uphold the same by finding the issue raised by the assessee as devoid of merit. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is also relating to the issue considered supra in the immediate paragraph. Hence, for the reasons stated therein, we find that this issue is devoid of merit and as such, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1170 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... held the Hon’ble High Court. Applying the ratio laid down in these decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that if the donor has already paid tax on the amount gifted, the same is required consideration while deciding the assessability of the same in the hands of the donee i.e. the present assessees. We thus in the interest of the justice set aside the matter to the file of the AO to afford opportunity to the assessees to cross-examine Shri Harish Kumar by securing his present before him and to examine this aspect of the case regarding payment of tax on the gifted amount by the donor in view of the above stated decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and decide the issue accordingly as per the law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds involving the issue no. 2 are thus allowed for statistical purpose. 12. In result appeals are partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on the day 28 /09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1169 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ell explained before the assessing authority by the taxpayer himself. Unfortunately, the taxpayer is no more. Therefore, the legal representatives of the taxpayer were practically handicapped in explaining the real situation which resulted in credit of the amount in the bank account. In such a circumstance, we may not be able to blame the legal heirs in not furnishing a satisfactory explanation. By taking into consideration the death of the taxpayer and the practical difficulty faced by the legal heirs in furnishing the reasons for not offering the amount found in the bank account, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly the same is confirmed. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1168 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Anita Sahani,Adv., Ms. Bhakti Pasrija,Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. However, we make it clear that it would be open to the Department to proceed to make assessment(s) in accordance with law, pending hearing and disposal of these appeals. Parties shall complete pleadings within eight weeks.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1167 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... for reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Mesco Airlines Ltd.(Supra). The Ld. D.R. has no objection. We, accordingly, restore the issue of levy of interest u/s. 158BFA(1) to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. So far as Ground No. 1 is concerned, the Ld Counsel fairly conceded same as against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh N. Gupta, 297 ITR 322. As ground No. 1 is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra), same is dismissed. The assessee has filed application for admission of the additional grounds but as the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, the Ld Counsel did not press same. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s Cross Objection is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 28th September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1165 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... it was not made in the return of income or by filing the revised return of income. However, Ld. CIT (A) has allowed the claim by referring the Hon’ble Apex Court decision on merits without considering the Assessing Officer’s objection in this regard. However, in our considered opinion, the tribunal is empowered to consider this issue. Accordingly, we allow the assessee to raise this issue. We, therefore, remit this issue to the files of the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2000) 245 ITR 428.” 7. Respectfully following the decision of Tribunal (Supra), we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2000) 245 ITR 428. In the result the Department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 14/09/ 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd of Excise and Customs which was placed before the Court, directed payment of 12% interest in the cases before it. The direction of the Tribunal to pay 12% interest on the amount of refund is, therefore, in consonance with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons, there being no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that amount recovered from the appellants by adjustment against the refunds has to be considered as pre-deposit made during the pendency of appeal. Deposit of duty, interest and penalty pending appeal is a statutory obligation. There is no question of Commissioner (Appeals) or Tribunal directing person to make pre-deposit. There is no question of filing refund claim, letter being already submitted.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1163 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... hould not be jeopardised, consequently, in the fitness of facts, it is appropriate that the assessee as well as the revenue both should get the opportunity. We are satisfied that keeping in view the documents, the length of time and the huge documents which were to be collected from different persons, the time provided to the assessee was not sufficient, therefore, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remand these files to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of the claims of the respective assessees for which due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessees, consequently, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only. Finally, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 27th August, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1160 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ounsel for the petitioner. 2. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1159 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... atter. If the AO is misguided by the assessee, the period of limitation cannot be extended under such circumstances because there is no provision in law to take care of such situation. The authorities below, therefore, wrongly computed the period of limitation from the date of the order received on passing the order on miscellaneous application. Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that the penalty order dated 28.08.2007 is clearly passed after the period of limitation as against the provisions of section 158BFA(3)(c) of the IT Act. We accordingly hold the penalty order so passed is time barred. Resultantly, no penalty could be levied against the assessee. In view of the above, there is no need to consider the levy of penalty on merits. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below levying and confirming the penalty, and allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1158 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... e Tribunal has no power to rehear the entire appeal, he accordingly suggested that the Tribunal may pass the order as per opinion of majority of members as provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 255 of the Income-tax Act. 5. We agree with the ld. DR As per majority view, the appeal of the assessee is decided as under (a) Ground No.1 is general in nature, therefore, needs no adjudication. (b) Ground No. 2 is rejected. (c) The addition made by the AO in respect in-house hold expenses of ₹ 40,400/- is reduced to ₹ 30,000/-. (d) The addition of ₹ 2,60,000/- being alleged investment in proprietary business is deleted. (e) The estimated value of goods imported of ₹ 4,75,000/- and estimated profit from Value of goods amounting to ₹ 1,26,900/- is deleted by allowing the benefit of telescoping. (f) Ground No. 4 is decided against the assessee, therefore, dismissed. (g) Ground No. 5 is dismissed; To summarise, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1157 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n factor was 75 gms. per cake for Dettol Soap Fresh. By mistake, in the Assessment Year 2000-2001, the assessee applied the conversion factor of 250 gms. per cake, which was wrongly taken from liquid soap and applied it as a conversion factor for Dettol Soap Fresh. In our view, this question needs to be reexamined. Learned counsel for the Department submits that this aspect was not communicated to the Assessing Officer. We need not go into this controversy of non-communication to the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that we want Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘ITAT’, for short to re-examine this aspect of conversion factor applicable to soap in the present case. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, impugned Orders passed by the High Court and ITAT are set aside and the matter is remitted to ITAT for de novo consideration of the above aspect. The civil appeal filed by the Department is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1156 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant.” 17. Applying the above ratio and the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the subsidy received by the assessee under the new package scheme incentive of 1993, was solely for the purpose of setting up of SSI unit in the backward area for which it has received special capital incentive computed on the basis of fixed capital investment actually made by the assessee and, therefore, the same is capital in nature and hence, not taxable. Thus, the finding and conclusion given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and, accordingly, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 18. As regards ground no.2, this issue is neither arising out of the assessment order nor from the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, hence, the same is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. 19. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st September 2012
........
|
