|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 667 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1581
... ...
... ... ..... that no expenditure would be required for earning interest on tax free bonds and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by this the revenue is before us. 27. The learned DR strongly submitted that in pursuance to section 14A of the Act, reasonable disallowance has to be made for earning exempt income. The learned senior counsel relied upon the findings of the CIT(A). 28. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the rival submissions. We agree with the submissions of the learned DR that reasonable disallowance needs to be made for earning this exempt income. In our considerate view a disallowance of 2% would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly restrict the disallowance to 2% instead of 5%. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly. Ground no.17 is partly allowed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1579
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. T. Sinha, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. (Not present) For the Respondent None ORDER Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1577
... ...
... ... ..... d be pointed out on behalf of the Revenue. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in ITO Vs. Shri Manubhai Narayanbhai Patel (supra), wherein held that the entire amount of deposit could not be taxed as income in the hands of the assessee, and the assessment of the amount representing the peak of cash credit, as the assessee s income, is wholly justified. In these facts of the case, and in view of the fact that there is no defect in the working of the peak amount, and in the absence of any evidence brought on record that the withdrawals made from the bank were utilised elsewhere, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, in assessing peak amount of credit in the bank account of the assessee, which is confirmed, and the ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1576
... ...
... ... ..... unaccounted income from Finance business, on one hand and on the other hand, the AO is directed to determine the incremental peak credit on the basis of the cash flow statement and then the unexplained investment in the finance business should be set off against the unaccounted income if found invested in the finance business. Only the balance, on netting, is required to be assessed on substantive basis in the hands of the firm. Since, we have already given these directions; therefore, on the same lines these two appeals are hereby decided. Hence, the grounds taken by the Revenue has no legal force therefore dismissed. 26. In the result, these two appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. Overall result is as under - (a). ITA No. 2691 2692(Revenue s Appeal) Allowed for statistical purpose. (b). ITA No.236, 237 238 (Assessee s Appeal) Dismissed. (c) ITA No. 586, 587 588 (Assessee s Appeal) Allowed for statistical purpose. (d) ITA No. 2689, 2690 (Revenue s Appeal) Dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1575
... ...
... ... ..... iture and genuineness of the services so rendered. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) on this ground and the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in terms of our above discussion. We direct accordingly. In the aforesaid order, an elaborate discussion has been made by the Tribunal, therefore, following the reasoning contained therein, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the Tribunal and decide the issue accordingly. 4. So far as cross objection raised by the assessee is concerned, the same is in support of the order of CIT(A). In view of the above, the cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous. Finally, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28.10.2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1574
... ...
... ... ..... pecial Leave Petitions are dismissed. However, the time to deposit the amount by way of pre-deposit, shall stand extended upto 31st October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1572
... ...
... ... ..... le. Moreover, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (Supra) had been rendered when the provisions of section 14A were not on the statute. Similarly the decision of Delhi bench of Tribunal in case of Krishna Bai Vs. ITO (Supra) is also not applicable. The Tribunal in the said case following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (Supra) held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed money invested in shares had to be allowed even if there was no income earned from investments in shares. The judgment is relevant only to the period prior to insertion of section 14A as per which no expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income can be allowed. Therefore, in our view the disallowance of expenditure by the authorities below on the facts of the case is justified. We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A). In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30 -10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1571
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is merely in support of the order of CIT(A). Since, we have dismissed the Revenue s appeal and confirmed the Order of the CIT(A), the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 9. In the result, ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the Revenue is dismissed and C.O.No.28/Hyd/2013 in ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the assessee is dismissed. 10. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue being ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013, the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA.No.530/Hyd/2013 are academic in nature and hence, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the same. Consequently, assessee s appeal, being of academic nature, is also treated as dismissed. 11 In the result, ITA.No.530/Hyd/2013 of the assessee is dismissed. 12. To sum-up, ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the Revenue is dismissed and C.O.No.28/Hyd/2013 in ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the Assessee is dismissed and ITA.No.530/Hyd/2013 of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.10.2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1569
... ...
... ... ..... ed, cannot be upheld. We are also unable to accede to the request of learned CIT(DR) to sent back the matter to AO considering that the matter is very old involving assessment year 2003-04 and no comparable has been placed on record even at this stage. We, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition made by AO. 3. The appeal of the department in ITA no. 5348/Mum2007. The only dispute raised by the revenue in this appeal is regarding deletion of addition on account of lease rent by CIT(A) in respect of TATA company assets. 3.1 We have already dealt with this issue while dealing with the appeal of the assessee and in view of the decision taken vide para no 2.2.3 of this order, no addition is required to be made. The ground raised by the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 4. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 04-10-2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1568
... ...
... ... ..... ., but being a separate legal entity, it cannot be construed that the shareholding pattern has not changed as the holding remains within the group. We fully agree with the findings of the CIT(A) that the provisions of section 79 are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the findings of the CIT(A) are confirmed. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Before closing, the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in ITA No.1184 & 2460/Del/2008. We find that the facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case, as much as in that case there was a merger of two companies, wherein the Tribunal has considered the first proviso to clause a to section 79 and has held that when existence of a company is legally finished it is akin to death of a share holder. As the facts are clearly distinguishable the decision relied upon by the assessee is misplaced. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1565
... ...
... ... ..... artners. Therefore, the additions of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.9,900/- are deleted.” Aggrieved by this order, the revenue filed an appeal which was dismissed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). A due consideration of the impugned orders would reveal that the firm furnished explanation that it had received funds from its partners. The firm, having disclosed the source of funds, it was absolved of its liability, if any, to explain the source of funds. The onus to explain receipts of the money, lay upon the partners who should have been asked to disclose the source of funds. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that as the firm has explained the source of funds, the revenue is required to proceed against the partner, do not suffer from any error of law. The questions of law are, therefore, answered against the revenue and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1563
... ...
... ... ..... ssee has not intimated change of address, if any, to the Registry of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursing its appeal. Therefore, following the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1552
... ...
... ... ..... he very same decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court suggests that it is more in favour of the assessee in the present case because when the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two view are possible and the AO has taken one view, which the CIT does not agree the order of the AO, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order or prejudicial to the interest of revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Considering this ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the light of the facts of the present case, we find that the view taken by the AO is not only of possible view but also permissible in law. Therefore, the order of the CIT under Section 263 deserves to be set aside and we accordingly set aside the order of the CIT and restore that of the AO. 10. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1551
... ...
... ... ..... udgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of TTK LIG Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., (supra) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT. Vs. Ashok Logani (supra). We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the aforesaid judgments do not apply on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is a non-speaking and cryptic. No valid reason has been given as to in what manner, the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and what is the basis or material for forming such an opinion. The CIT has leveled general allegations which is not permissible under the provisions of the Act for initiating revision proceedings u/s.263. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 30th October, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1550
... ...
... ... ..... t the same ground was taken by the assessee in assessment year 2005-06 and the Tribunal adjudicating this ground had restored the matter back to the file of AO. Both the parties therefore agreed that the matter requires to be sent back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in the light of procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts Ltd vs ITO 259 ITR 90 and jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Garden Finance Ltd vs. CIT 268 ITR 48 and MGM Export vs. DCIT 23 DTR 356(Guj). This additional ground is accordingly disposed off 4. In view of our decision in respect of additional ground, the other grounds raised in the appeals of assessee and revenue do not require any adjudication on our part at this stage and are therefore treated as infructuous. 5. In the result, both these appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (10) TMI 1549
... ...
... ... ..... al have not been accepted by the Department and matters are being taken in appeals before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. 6. But in addition to the decisions of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court referred to, in paragraph above. There is no decision of Jurisdictional High Court against the propositions argued by the Revenue. When that is the case, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192, the decisions favourable to the assessee rendered by the Hon’ble Courts have to be acted upon. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is justified in accepting the contentions advanced by the assessee. 7. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 7th of October, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1548
... ...
... ... ..... 396 (2008-TIOL-404-ITAT-MUM), Jethalal D. MehtaVs Dy. CIT 2 SOT 422 (Mum) and Maheshwar Prakash 2 c. h. s. Vs ITO 20 DTR 269 (Mum). Therefore following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was right in assessing the transfer of FSI/TDR under the head capital gain instead of assessing the same under the head “income from other sources”. However, as there is no cost of acquisition of the asset transferred, there will be no liability to capital gains. ” Respectfully following the above order as well as the other order of the coordinating bench, we decide effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 3 is about chargability of interest u/s. 234 of the Act. As the issue of charging of interest u/s. 234 is consequential in nature so, the ground filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1546
... ...
... ... ..... s set aside and the issue is restored back to the file of AO for the limited purpose to recalculate disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, if any, in accordance with the above observations and as per provisions of IT Act.-CIT vs. Tingri Tea Co. Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR 294 (Cal) relied on.” 15.1. The ld.Sr.DR could not controvert the finding of the Hon’ble coordinate Bench and nothing has been brought on record suggesting that the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Torrent Financiers(supra) is not applicable. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble coordinate Bench, we hereby set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the AO is directed to delete the addition. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee in its cross-objection is allowed. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed, whereas crossobjection filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (10) TMI 1545
... ...
... ... ..... ential order only after disposal of the SLP (Civil Appeal) by the Supreme Court. 3. It is not in dispute that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal stands answered by the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In view of the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009, the substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4. We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders, as contemplated by Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only after the Supreme Court finally dispose of the SLP arising from the judgment of this court in ITA No.105/2009. In other words, till then, the Assessing Officer shall keep the matter pending for passing the consequential orders. However, this order shall not preclude the Assessing Officer from collecting tax if any, due from the assessee, if not already collected. 5. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1544
... ...
... ... ..... ction created in this section cannot be extended to any asset other than those specifically provided therein. As sec. 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land. As the assessee transferred lease right for sixty years in the Plot and not land itself, the provisions of sec.50C cannot be invoked. We, therefore, hold that the full value of consideration in the instant case be taken as ₹ 2.50 crores.” 5. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any new fact or proposition of law which may justify departure there from the above settled legal position on the issue by the coordinate bench of the tribunal on this issue. So respectfully following the same, it is held that section 50C can not be invoked in the case of assessee being the case of transfer of lease hold rights. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2013.
........
|
