|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1155 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... hs 14 & 15 “14. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal finds that deduction u/s 80IB was subject matter of assessment in the original assessment even before the search. Therefore, the concluded assessment cannot be reopened u/s 153A of the Act. Once the assessment is completed, search u/s 153A will not extend the period limitation in section 263 to revise the order of original assessment. Therefore, the original assessment completed on 27- 02-2006 becomes final which cannot be revised after the expiry of two years. Therefore, as found by this Tribunal for the assessment year 2002-03, the Commissioner’s interference u/s 263 is not sustainable in law. 15. In the result, taxpayer’s appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.223/Coch/2009 is allowed.” The order of the Tribunal is rectified accordingly. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1154 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income on sale and purchase of shares - income assessable under the head income from other sources OR long term capital gain - Held that:- No reason or logic in treating the purchase of 11,500 shares as bogus. The Lower Authorities could have directly verified the transaction from the company itself, whose shares were questioned to be bogus but both the Lower Authorities did not do this exercise. The Remand Report of the AO itself show that the transactions have been treated as genuine subsequently by the AO himself while sending the Remand Report to the CIT(A). We find that the sale transaction of 11,500 shares of M/s. Robinson Impex (India) Ltd (Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd.,) has not been doubted or questioned by the Lower Authorities. A simple logical question arises if the shares were never purchased, how can they be sold subsequently?
After considering all the facts and submissions, we find that both the Lower Authorities have grossly erred in treating the sale consideration as ‘Income from un-disclosed sources’.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1153 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in ITA No.1026(Mad)/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02 and according to which the deduction u/s.80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee for generating power for captive consumption.” 59. Before us at the outset the Ld. A.R. and D.R. submitted that the facts in the present case are similar to that of A.Y. 2006-07 and therefore had same submissions to be made in their support. 60. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the facts in the preset case are similar to that of Assessment Year 2006-07 and since there are no new facts respectfully following the decision given in paragraph 44, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue. Accordingly this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 61. In the result appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08 are partly allowed whereas the appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 21 - 9 - 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1152 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... interest, etc. In respect of which allowances are provided for u/s 30 to 37. For attracting section 14A, there has to be an approximate cause for disallowance which is its relationship with tax exempt income. Therefore, for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, it requires a finding of incurring of expenditure and where it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred disallowance u/s 14A cannot stand. In the present appeal, on the basis of record, there is categorical uncontroverted finding that the assessee has earned interest on amounts given to the companies as well as on FDRs and the Assessing Officer did not consider the earnings by way of interest which were more than what was paid to the banks, therefore, no disallowance was called for, consequently, we find no infirmity in the stand of the learned CIT(A). It is affirmed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court on 4th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1150 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th due diligence another civil proceeding then the period spent on such proceedings should be excluded, provided proceedings are based on the same cause of action and it is prosecuted in good faith in such a Court on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that right of one appeal is recognized in all jurisdictions and the matter ought to have been decided by the Tribunal on merits. Accordingly, we are of the view, that the application seeking condonation of delay of 890 days is liable to be accepted. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dt. 9th July, 2012 is set aside. The delay of 890 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored on the board of the Tribunal at its original number and the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal within one month.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1149 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eon Technology P. Ltd. (supra) hold that the assessee has no liability to deduct TDS. 13. Insofar as the concurrence from the Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) and 195(3) is concerned, in view of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indopel Garments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), payment to non-resident, where there is no chargeable income it is not necessary for an assessee to get concurrence of Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Act. We therefore hold that when there is no business connection established, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS. It is not necessary for the concurrence of the Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 27th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1146 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... paid to all the employees was also allowed. 14. From the evidence produced it is clear that the employees in question were their permanent employees and retrenching them was not an easy option. 15. The assessee has produced a detailed note on the justification of salary and wages paid, details of employees, copies of the ledger account of wages, salary, workers welfare, leave encashment, attendance and other expenses incurred on employees and workers. The expenditure cannot be disallowed on the ground of prudence. It is well settled that the AO cannot sit in the arm chair of the businessman and substitute his views for that of the businessman. The CIT(A) has recorded a finding of fact that salaries and wages were paid and this fact remains undisputed and unequivocally established. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 16. In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ication to rectify an order, which is the opinion of the Third Member, to which the matter was referred by the bench of Tribunal of two Members , would not fall within the meaning of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, in appeal. It is an opinion, and not a final order of the Tribunal, which was required to be framed on such opinion. 8. Since the final order of the Tribunal dated 31.5.2005, is under challenge in which the department may take the grounds, which have been taken in this appeal. This appeal as against the order dated 7.4.2000, rejecting the rectification application of the department is held to be not maintainable. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with observations that in case the department has not taken the grounds, urged in this appeal, in the appeal filed against the order dated 31.05.2005, in Lucknow Bench of the Court. It will be open to the appellant to make an application to the Court hearing the appeal, to consider the appeal on such grounds.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1144 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of late payment of employees’ contribution of ESIC & PF - Held that:- We have no hesitation in holding that the employees’ contribution towards PF paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is admissible. Consequently, findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld. With these directions, ground no. 1 in the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1142 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the income in question is liable to be taxed as business income or as income from house property" - Held that:- From the records, we find that, for the earlier Assessment Year 2001-2002, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that income in question is business income.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1141 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... materials on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to accept the payment by cheque. We are of the view that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal is a finding of fact and since the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion on the materials available on record, we are of the opinion that no referable question arose out of its order. Since we have held that the payments made by the assessee is not liable to be disallowed while computing the business income, on the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the applicability of rule 6DD(j) of the Rules.” 9. In the circumstances, we hold that no disallowance under section 40A(3) is warranted by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s case. Therefore, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) of the Act. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 11th of September, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1140 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ot be taxed on the basis of estoppel of any other equitable doctrine. Further, if a particular income is not exigible to tax, Assessing Officer has no power to impose tax on the said income. We further find that Article 265 of the Constitution of India states that no tax can be collected except by authority of law. CBDT Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955 dated 11.4.1955 states that officer of the department must not take advantage of the ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we hold that the assessee’s contention during assessment have to be duly considered on merits and decided accordingly. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue in this case to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider the same on merits and decide accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1139 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cer furnished alongwith the appeal is the order dated 19th March, 2009 passed under Section 154/254/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From a perusal of this order, it is not clear whether the refund was granted under Section 143(1) and then after the order under Section 143(3), the interest was charged or the refund was granted by virtue of CIT(A)’s order and interest under Section 234D is charged on the reversal of such order by the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the orders of lower authorities on this point and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for factual verification and readjudication of issue of charging of interest under Section 234D as per our observation above. Needless to mention that the Assessing Officer will allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is deemed to be partly allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 21st September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1137 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ta in ITA No.267/Kol./2009 on which reliance has been placed by the learned Tribunal. On query, he submits that no appeal has been preferred. In view of the aforesaid information, we think that this Court shall not interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal as it has got the binding effect by this time. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1136 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e income of ₹ 40,68,215/- in this year. This issue is also identical as adjudicated in the Asst. Year 2001-02. Admittedly in this year substantial incriminating evidence was found against the assessee. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. M.K.E. Memon (Supra) CIT Vs. HM Eusfalli HM Abdulala (Supra). Once the modus operandi is admitted by the assessee, in our opinion, no grievance should be made that some income is estimated. In our opinion the estimation made by the Assessing Officer need no interference as same is reasonable. We accordingly confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 47. In the result, assessee’s appeals for Asst. Years 1999-2000 & 2004-05 are dismissed and appeals for Asst. Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 are partly allowed. Order accordingly. Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1134 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or sales outside the books. The Tribunal has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Having regard to the above findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) upon appreciation of the material on record, no infirmity can be found in the reasoning adopted by him. Though it has been contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, the learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out any material to the contrary so as to dislodge the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) with which the Tribunal, after appreciating the material on record, has concurred. 7. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal being based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciating the material on record, in absence of any perversity being pointed out therein, does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1132 - ITAT, PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee is more acceptable since the lower authorities have not decided the issue from the angle of gift. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the contention of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 3 crores received as corpus donation is in the nature of gift and therefore the same is not taxable in view of the ratio of the decisions cited (Supra). The AO should also keep in mind the outcome of the writ petition filed by the assessee, if available at the time of passing the order. Needless to say the AO shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 12th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1130 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ng Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decisions of various courts of law. 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. Since the additions in the present case have been deleted by us in quantum appeal hereinabove in assessee's case in ITA No. 406(Asr)/2009 for the assessment year 2003-04 by our order of even date. Therefore, in the absence of any addition, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, can be levied by the AO and the same deserves to be cancelled. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty since the assessee had established that the money received from M/s. Shital Fibres Ltd. is in the nature of deposits and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, all the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.406(Asr)/2009 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.146(Asr)/2011 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1120 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is against the revenue, therefore consequently, the same issue in this appeal has to be allowed. 92. The order of the revenue authorities are therefore reversed and the AO is directed to accept the computation as made by the assessee. 93. The ground is allowed. 94. Ground no. 9 is not pressed, hence dismissed. 95. Ground no. 10 is on account of levy of interests u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D. 96. The CIT (A) has held that the exigibility of interest are consequential in nature, and he has directed the AO to charge interest as per law, after verification. 97. The exigibility of interests can only be verified on arriving at the conclusion and final assessment of assessed income. We, therefore, endorse the direction of the CIT (A) and direct the AO to charge interest after verification. 98. The ground is thus allowed. 99. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are thus partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1113 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit under Section 68 - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- There cannot be any doubt about the transaction as has been observed by the Assessing Officer. The transactions were as per norms under controlled by the Securities Transaction Tax, brokerage service tax and cess, which were already paid. They were complied with. All the transactions were through bank. There is no iota of evidence over the above transactions as it were through d-mat format. - Decided against revenue
........
|
