|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 401 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 901 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ssible view. It has been held that jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be exercised to substitute a possible view of the AO with that of another contrary possible view of the CIT. 12. Apart from the above, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98 (Karn), has taken a view that whatever is excluded from the export turnover has to be excluded from the total turnover as well. If the aforesaid decision is applied, then there would be no effect on the claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, as allowed by the AO. In other words, the order of the AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Thus even on this ground, action u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. 13. For the reasons given above, we quash the order u/s. 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 900 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e over. In this case, we are conserned with the interpretation of section 36(1)(vii) of the 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehension/desirability. It is always open to the accessing officer to call for details of individual debtors account if the assessing officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years. There is also a flip side to the argument of the department. The assessee has instituted recovery suits in courts against its debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the debtor/defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed. In the light of the jughment of Apex Court, there is no merit in this appeal. 5. The appeals are dismissed answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenve.
-
2013 (2) TMI 897 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... decision. Such issue, therefore, shall have to be placed back before the Tribunal for consideration on merits.” This issue is also being remanded to the Tribunal to examine on merit and to render its decision. 5. As far as question 3 B is concerned, concerning public issue expenses to the tune of ₹ 9,13,861/-, the Tribunal, in its impugned order, had directed the Assessing Officer to follow the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01. This had been challenged before this Court for the assessment year 2000-01. This Court has not entertained such question. Being the identical question arising in case of very same assessee. With no new grounds having been made, the same does not deserve any further consideration on merits. Tax appeal, resultantly, stands disposed of remanding the question 3(A) back to the Tribunal for rendering its decision after duly considering the question in accordance with law, on availing opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
-
2013 (2) TMI 896 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... same. This ground is accordingly allowed.” 9. We find that it is not in dispute that income of Hong Kong branch was truly and correctly declared by the assessee in its return of income. No inaccuracy in the particulars of the income disclosed by the assessee was found in the assessment. The only error which was found in the assessment for which penalty in question is levied, relates to the computation of tax liability. In the above circumstances, in our considered opinion, it cannot be held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and consequently keeping in view the provisions of Explantion-4 to section 271(1) of the Act , no penalty is legally leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We ,therefore confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue. 10. In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 14th February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 895 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... data was available, Settlement Commission has not brought the figure out of nothing nor based its conclusion on surmise or conjecture. It is also not his whims or fancy getting reflected in the final additional figure of ₹ 47.34 Lacs, causing alleged serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is made out from the material on record, that too for filling the void of remaining period, statement of the partner is made the basis who has spoken of different rates for different categories of construction and also amongst those categories, importance of location in determining the amount of consideration of such shops and flats. Neither in the process of decision making nor otherwise, petitioner is able to make out a case of any breach of provisions nor the decision appears to have led to cause any serious prejudice on account of faulty decision making process, necessitating invocation of powers of judicial review. 17. Petition resultantly is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 894 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il Court where a compromise by and between the parties had been effected. There was no question of any transfer till the said compromise was effected in the Civil Suit No.4801-98. Therefore, it allowed the order of the CIT(A) holding that the profit under question in such circumstances was declared in assessment year 2003-2004 and this interpretation is in consonance with the provisions of law where, in fact, there was no transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) (sic) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the business profit of ₹ 36,52,656/- assessed as undisclosed profit by the Assessing Officer, was rightly directed to be deleted by both the authorities. The question answered by both the authorities is predominantly based on material available and interpreting the same in accordance with law, the question of law is accordingly answered. In view of discussion held herein above, Tax Appeal deserves no further consideration and therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 893 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut not fallen due or received?. 2 The Counsel for the parties state that the question raised in this Appeal is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the RespondentAssessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v/s. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait, BSC in Income Tax Appeal No.1738 of 2011 rendered on 5th February, 2013. 3 In view of the above, 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 892 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... be assessed in the hands of the company itself.” 14. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, we are finally inclined to hold that the assessee company discharged his burden to prove the genuineness of the transaction by submitting confirmation and other relevant details of the share applicant companies and on the other hand, the Assessing Officer did not bother to verify the confirmation and other details filed by the assessee as per available procedure in the statutory provisions. We also observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly held that the Assessing Officer came forward to reject all the material and evidence submitted by the assessee without any verification on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjectures. Accordingly, we hold that this appeal of the revenue being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.2.2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 891 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... has failed to establish that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in connection with the said disallowance. The assessee had furnished complete particulars of its income and expenditure and had also furnished the details of interest bearing funds and also interest free advances made by it. The case of the Revenue was that in view of the mixed funds available with the assessee, proportionate disallowance is to be made out of interest expenditure relatable to the interest free advances made by the assessee. We are in agreement with the order of the assessee that the assessee having furnished complete particulars of income and mere disallowance of interest in the hands of the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act does not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 890 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se and in law the Tribunal has erred in holding that interest income payable by the Indian PE of a foreign bank to its HO and branch Offices abroad cannot be taken into account for the purpose of accounting the income of HO liable to be taxed in India? 3) Counsel for the revenue requests that an early date for final hearing of the appeal be fixed as the issues arising in the impugned order affects large number of matters which are in dispute before the authorities. 4) In this view of the matter, by consent, appeal is fixed for hearing on 15/4/2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 889 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... T v. East Coast Commercial Company Ltd. (63 ITR 449) (SC). 34. The Assessing Officer after receiving the information from the CBDT and intimating the same to the assessee and after detailed enquiry with questionnaire issued to the assessee, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the assessee had invested unaccounted money in Webster Foundation and accordingly he invoked section 69 of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 69 of the Act and the same has rightly been confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). In view of the above, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the assessee also. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 25th of February, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 888 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... order dated 30.10.2009 had confirmed the disallowance of employees’ contribution to ESI and EPF totaling ₹ 3,79,961/-. The plea of the assessee is that the issue of allowability of such expenditure has not been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that once the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such law is the law of land and is applicable to all. In view thereof, we find merit in the plea of the assessee and we recall our order dated 30.10.2009 to the limited extent of deciding the ground No.1 raised by the assessee in relation to the disallowance made on account of late deposit of employees’ contribution to ESI and EPF. The said ground of appeal No.1 is recalled and fixed for hearing on 19.3.2013. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms stated above. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 886 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r Amit Sachdeva, Advs. ORDER This appeal already stands admitted and the question of law has also been formulated. List in due course.
-
2013 (2) TMI 884 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... allowed the claim of the respondentassessee by following its orders in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1986-87, 1988-89,1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1995-96. In the aforesaid years, the commission expenses incurred by the respondents-assessee were allowed as deduction in determining the profits of the respondent-assessee. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the revenue has challenged the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years allowing the claim of the respondent-assessee. Moreover, neither before the Tribunal nor before us, the revenue made any attempt to distinguish the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier years from the facts as appearing in the present assessment year. In view of the above, we find no fault to with the reasoning of the Tribunal and do not entertain the questions (d) & (e). 6. So far a question (b) is concerned, it is a different facet of question (a). The appeal is admitted on question (a) above.
-
2013 (2) TMI 883 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l, the respondent assessee had pointed out that similar dispute has arisen in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 and the Tribunal upheld the stand of the respondent-assessee. It also records the fact that the respondent-assessee's policy of identifying and making provision for the diminution of the value of the obsolete stock was accepted by the department for earlier assessment years and no disallowance was made in the earlier assessment years till the instant assessment year. The revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishable circumstances during the current assessment year from that existing and accepted in the earlier assessment years and also more particularly with regard to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. In the aforesaid circumstances, we see no reason to entertain question (f) as formulated by the taken revenue. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 881 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... sonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose on the above issue.” Taking cue from the same, we also hold that merely by making a provision, the assessee has not made any actual contribution to the approved pension fund in question so as to attract the charging section aforesaid. So far as the case law cited by the Revenue is concerned (supra), mindful of the trite preposition of the law is that in case of two divergent judicial opinions, the one which favours the assessee has to be adopted, we hereby decide the appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 . 7. Therefore, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and order passed by the CIT(A) is upheld. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 20th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 880 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ment to ALP is also decided in favour of the assessee in several decisions referred to in the stay petition, we are of the view that the assessee has made out a prima facie case. Considering the balance of convenience, relative hardship and the financial position of the assessee, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to grant an order of stay on recovery of outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order, or till the appeal is disposed of, whichever is earlier. The assessee is, however, directed to pay a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards the outstanding demand on or before 31.03.2013. The appeal is fixed for hearing out of turn on 17th April, 2013 and the date of hearing of the appeal was announced in the open court. Hence no separate notice of hearing be sent to the parties. 6. In the result, the stay petition is allowed as indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on this 1st day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 879 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... As in that case, in the present case also, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has been remanding matters to the Transfer Pricing Officer for re-computation on the basis of guidelines given by a Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that a remand might not be warranted However, as in that case, in the present case also, we are of the view that the said issue is for the Tribunal to decide and we would refrain from making any comments thereon. Therefore, we renotify this matter on 19.03.2013 and direct that, in the meanwhile, the respondent shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner in respect of the demand in the present case. Hopefully, the Tribunal would have disposed of the appeal by that date. Neither party shall seek any adjournment before the Tribunal. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (2) TMI 878 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 even though there is no such provision in Section 10A and Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3) Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in the present case is covered in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 877 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... s. So far as the ground no.1 is concerned, it is in respect of the disallowances of the royalty payment of ₹ 3,08,01,101/- which was paid to Carraro Spa, Italy by the assessee. We have already adjudicated and decided the identical issue in the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Following our detailed reasoning in the A.Y. 2003-04 on this issue, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this year also and ground no.1 is dismissed. 17. So far as ground no.2 is concerned, it is in respect of rate of depreciation on the computer peripherals and accessories. We have already decided the identical issue in the A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05. As the facts are identical as reasoning given in the preceding years, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) directing the A.O. to allow the depreciation @ 60% on the computer peripherals and accessories. Accordingly, ground no.2 is dismissed. 18. In the result, all three appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 18.02.2013
........
|
