|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 401 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 938
... ...
... ... ..... do not find any substance in this ground of appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same is dismissed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 349/Agr/2011 by the assessee Smt. Renu Agarwal 39. Ground No. 1 is in respect of sustenance of addition of Rs. 7,37,000/- by the CIT(A) being payment made to Mrs. Bina Gupta. 40. In the light of the detailed discussion made in this order vide paragraph Nos. 8 to 24, we delete the addition and ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 41. The second ground of appeal is in respect of charging of interest under section 234C of the Act. 42. In the light of the detailed discussions made in paragraph Nos. 36 to 39 of this order, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. In the result, ITA Nos. 405, 404, 406, 407 466/Agr/2011 filed by the Revenue are dismissed and ITA Nos. 348 349/Agr/2011 filed by the assessee are partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (2) TMI 934
... ...
... ... ..... on sale of scrap as well as on account of job work charges at Rs.1,09,800/-. 6. Remaining item is sundry balance written off aggregating to Rs.24,936./- i.e., in respect of sundry balances all creditors written off. I noted that the purchase of material/service from such creditor has gone to reduce the profit of the firm thereby reducing the claim of deduction under section 80IB in earlier year. Hence, credit balance written off from such expenses would form part of the business income under section 41 (1) of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered view that deduction under section 80IB is allowable on this amount also. Accordingly, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IB on account of job work charges, sale of scrap and sundry balances written off. However, no deduction will be allowed in respect of interest at Rs.1,65,288/-. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01st February, 2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 933
... ...
... ... ..... ee has received compensation of Rs. 3,02,16,828/- for granting the developer the right to develop the property which is clearly taxable as per provisions of Section 2(24) read with Section 2(47) and 2(14) of the Income Tax Act? 2 The Revenue seeks to tax the society in respect of the amount received on transfer of TDR. The Tribunal in the impugned order recorded a finding of fact that the amount which was received on the transfer of TDR was received by members of Respondent Society. The members of the Society had offered the amounts received by them to tax in their individual returns. In fact, copies of orders of the Tribunal in respect of individual members who received amount from the developers and offered to tax was also placed before the Tribunal. 3 As the decision is based on a finding of fact which is not challenged by the Revenue as being perverse, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 927
... ...
... ... ..... e re-look of accounts which were earlier furnished by assessee, Assessing Officer had come to conclusion that income had escaped assessment, same was not permissible under section 147 as it was clearly a change of opinion and therefore order re-opening assessment was not permissible”. 21. On the other issue of “Reduction in relief allowable for taxes paid in Sri Lanka”, also we find the case of the assessee to be covered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. (supra), as extracted in the order, in para 10 above. 22. In the light of our observations made herein above, we quash the reassessment proceedings, as initiated by the AO, as a consequence of which all the subsequent proceedings stands annulled. 23. As we have quashed the reassessment proceedings, we do not find any justification to go into the merits. 24. The appeal filed by the assessee, therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... therwise charitable.” 10. De hors the controversy with respect to amendment of the trust deed, we are of the considered opinion that the original trust deed specifically mentions about charitable activities being carried out by the assessee trust. The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has amended its trust deed, therefore, it is not eligible for registration under section 12AA of the Act. 11. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the file back to the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) to decide the application of the assessee for registration afresh by taking into consideration the original trust deed and also the activities being carried out by the assessee from the period of its inception. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 28th day of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 925
... ...
... ... ..... s observed that commencement certificate was issued on 10.03.2000 and according to him, it was revised certificate. It is revised commencement certificate and project Kumar Puram is different identity. Factually, entire land on plot No.411 as stated above was already divided into various plots which was purchased by various parties so it was not justified on part of the Revenue to hold that all construction on the total land was one project. This view is supported by the decisions in the cases of M/s.Rahul Constructions (supra), M/s.Aditya Developers (supra) and Vandana Properties (supra) and Mudit Madanlal Gupta vs. ACIT 51 DTR 217 (Bom) and Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. 119 TTJ 269 (Bang.). In view of above, we hold that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) with regard to Kumar Puram project constructed on plot No.6 of original plot No.411. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 923
No Permanent Establishment (PE) in India - Income Earned in India taxable or not? u/s 12(2) of the DTAA - The assessee company is tax residence of USA and has entered into an agreement with an Indian company for the distribution of the cinematographic films in India and has received royalty at specified rates. A.O. held that such receipt is business income of the assessee and taxable in India being the profit attributable to PE in India. - HELD THAT : - If income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to PE. In this case, the assessee does not have any PE in India therefore the amount received under the agreement of distribution is not taxable in India.
Decision in the case of - ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX - 2007 (1) TMI 91 - Supreme Court, relied upon.
-
2013 (2) TMI 922
... ...
... ... ..... he circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed as the profits of the business as reduced by profits allowed as deduction under section 80IA/80IB ? 2. Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (i) is concerned, the same is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 2009 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (i). 3. So far as question (ii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in 2011 332 ITR 42. In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (ii). 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 920
... ...
... ... ..... e Act. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before us. 20. Learned Authorised Representative submitted that interest on FDs and rebate under sec. 88E has no connection. He submitted that assessee made submissions before learned CIT(A) but learned CIT(A) has not given any specific findings on the said issue. Therefore, matter may be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to redecide the same afresh after giving due opportunity to assessee. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that he has no objection to restore the matter to file of learned CIT(A). 21. Considering above submissions of learned representatives of parties and the findings given by us in respect of ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal hereinabove, we restore this issue to the file of learned CIT(A) to redecide the same by a reasoned order after giving due opportunity of being heard to both sides. Thus, ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed in part.
-
2013 (2) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... 33B of Income-tax Act, 1922, had relied on certain facts, which were not indicated or communicated to the assessee. Hon'ble Apex Court held that this was not a reason to quash the order of CIT since assessee would have opportunity before Assessing Officer to put forth her case, when it was taken up pursuant to revisionary proceedings. In our opinion, the facts of this case are entirely different. Assessee here has not argued that any facts mentioned by the CIT in his revisionary order were not communicated to it. On the other hand, what the assessee here says is that the order of CIT itself was erroneous and not that of Assessing Officer. 20. In the result, order of the CIT is quashed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 21. To summarize the result, assessee’s appeal in I.T.A. No. 1208/Mds/2012 is partly allowed, while its appeal in I.T.A. No. 1209/Mds/2012 is allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 14th of February, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 915
... ...
... ... ..... ty by way of running a Tamil High School at Karaikal for the benefit of the local population. There is no allegation that the assessee trust is diverting any of its income for purposes other than the objects proclaimed by it. There is no case of any private enjoyment of any asset, property or income of the assessee trust. On going through the records of the case, we find that the assessee is carrying on charitable activity by running a Tamil High School for the benefit of poor and people of moderate income. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to deny the benefit of sec.80G(5)(vi) to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to renew exemption given to the assessee under sec. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, from the date of expiry of earlier order granting exemption. 7. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 12th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 914
... ...
... ... ..... n would act; the authorities must not look at the matter from their viewpoint, but from that of a prudent businessman impelled by commercial expediency. In view of the above discussion, the order of the lower authorities was to be set aside. 8. If the facts of the case under consideration are compared with the cases of M.M. Textiles and Subhash Chander & Co (supra), it becomes clear that the they are more or less identical. In the present case, Directors/relatives have been paid interest @ 15%, which in few cases after adjustments, have fluctuated to 16%. It is a known fact that interest on FDs is 7 to 9%. AO/FAA has not established that interest payment to Directors was un-reasonable or excessive. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the coordinating Benches, we reverse the order of the FAA. We decide Grounds of Appeal in favour of the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 911
... ...
... ... ..... y by way of appeal is available to the petitioner, Sub-Registrar against the impugned penalty order before the first appellate authority i.e., CIT(A), this Court need not to go into the questions of merits on the imposition of penalty against the Sub-Registrar and he has the liberty to file appeal before the CIT(A), against the penalty order dt. 12th March, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the petitioner. Sub-Registrar/s that if they intend to challenge the said impugned penalty orders before the CIT(A), they may do so by filing appeals within one month from today and if such appeals are so filed within one month from today, the objection of limitation will not come in the way and the concerned appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals expeditiously on merits in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. No costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 910
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee to the Tribunal was allowed on a statement that the matter was covered in favour of the assessee by another order of the Tribunal. On appeal Held dismissing the appeal, that the income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. It could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. “ 10. Respectfully following the above quoted decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunal, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 22nd of February, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 909
... ...
... ... ..... dispute having regard to its nature. In these circumstances, we feel that the Secretary, Finance may summon both the parties and discuss the matter with them to find out the possible solution, if any. List on 09.04.2013. The appellant/assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 278 crores in the treasury. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present appeal and subject to the outcome thereof, let that amount be treated as the amount paid to the Income Tax Department on account of tax in the present case.
-
2013 (2) TMI 908
... ...
... ... ..... as been considered as income, the same cannot be considered as deposit for levy of penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. We accordingly direct the deletion of penalty. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we have no reason to interfere. It appears that the receipt for which revenue intends to invoke the provisions of section 269SS or 269T as the case may be for imposing penalty under section 271D or 271E as the case may be were during the assessment proceedings treated as the booking advance and consequently assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee invoking section 68 of the Act. Such amounts were treated as booking advance and therefore, taxed as undisclosed income. We agree with the view of CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal that same would thereafter not bear the in that view of the matter, no question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 907
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee. 3.5 The Ground No. 6 is regarding re-computation of indirect cost attributable to export of trading goods. This issue we have already decided while dealing with Ground No. 9 of the assessees. The same issue had been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1998-99 in which the issue was decided in favour of the revenue to which the both the parties agreed. We therefore direct the AO to compute the indirect cost in the light of decision of Tribunal in the A.Y. 1998-99 (supra). 3.6 The Dispute raised in Ground No. 7 is regarding adjustment u/s 145A of the Income-tax Act. The same issue we have already considered while dealing with the Ground No. 7 of the assessee. Following our decision in Para No. 2.9.1 this issue is restored to the file of AO for fresh decision after following opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of February 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 906
... ...
... ... ..... ,08,394/-. Moreover, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of P.G. Electronics Vs. ITO reported as 15 SOT 79 has held that Keyman Insurance Premium has to be allowed as expenditure in view of Board’s Circular No.762 (supra). 13. In view of the categoric issue-wise findings of the CIT(A) in the impugned order, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the same and uphold the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06 is also dismissed as it is devoid of merit. 14. Since, the counsel for the assessee has not pressed the Cross Objections filed by the assessee and in view of the fact that appeals of the Revenue have been dismissed, both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as having become infructuous. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 7th day of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... missible for the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration for the assessment of such income. We also carefully gone through the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Nath (supra). It does not carry the case of the assessee any further inasmuch as on a plain reading of the Tribunal order, it is apparent that finding recorded by the assessee is to the effect that the impugned receipt is not taxable in those assessment years and it is to be assessable in the assessment year 2002-03. Thus, the contention that there is no finding or direction within the meaning of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act is contrary to the facts of the case. Further, same is the position in the case of other judgements relied on by the assessee counsel. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. 27. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 902
... ...
... ... ..... od of two and half decades has seen lots of ups and downs qua fair market value of the immovable properties. Faced with this situation, we notice that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case law 2012 204 TAXMAN 258 (Mad) titled as CIT v. J. Chelladurai has determined fair market value of the property as the average value of the claim made by the assessee and the Revenue. Guided by the aforesaid analogy and by adopting holistic approach, we also proceed as per same formula in the larger interest of the justice and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the average value adopted by the Sub- Registrar and the assessee i.e. ₹ 10,000 ₹ 11,84,124 ÷ 2 ₹ 5,97,062/- as the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 and pass consequential order in accordance with law. 10. Consequently, appeal of the assessee is partly accepted, whereas, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 18th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
