|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 401 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 876 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t. This has not been done. Rather, contrary to the provisions of Rule-46A without confronting the evidences filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) to the AO, those evidences have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 9. In this view of the situation, we are of the opinion that the matter should be restored back to the file of AO with a direction to frame denovo assessment as per provisions of law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. We direct accordingly. 10. Since we are directing the AO to frame denovo assessment as per law, we do not express any opinion on the additions which have been upheld by Ld. CIT(A) as those will be reconsidered by AO as per aforementioned direction. With these observations the appeal filed by the assessee is considered to be allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 14th day of Feb.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 874 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2012 343 ITR 89 (SC) such issue in the context of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act has been settled. It is held that it would only be the net of the interest excluding the expenditure incurred in earning such interest income which should be excluded for the purpose of under Section 80 HHC of the Act. To our mind, same would apply even when the revenue desirous to exclude certain interest income from the deduction available under Section 80IA of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal committed no error. 3. In the result, tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in law in holding that the delay payment charges of ₹ 8.78 crores receivable from the GEB were not required to be added to the total income of the assessee on account of the developments which took place after the end of the year under consideration.
-
2013 (2) TMI 873 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... esent case, finally held that since the substantive additions made in the cases of Shri Mukesh Garg could not sustain, the protective additions made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee partnership firm cannot survive. With these observations, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. There is nothing before us to take a different view in this regard. We are unable to see any perversity, infirmity and ambiguity in the impugned order as alleged by the ld. DR. It is a well-settled position of law that when substantive addition has been deleted by the competent statutory authority, then the protective addition made thereunder and related to the substantive addition cannot survive. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned order and all grounds raised in these appeals are devoid of merits and we dismiss them all. 10. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 872 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other sources which have no nexus with the business and profession of the assessee in book profit u/s. 40(b)(v) for working out remuneration allowable to partners? 3) Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (a) is concerned, for the assessment year 2000-01, identical question raised by the revenue in respect of the same respondent assessee was not entertained by an order dated 21/1/2013 of this Court. This was in view of the fact that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.86/2011 rendered on 26/7/2011. Question (a) is therefore, not entertained. 3) The appeal is admitted on question (b).
-
2013 (2) TMI 868 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the earlier letters dated 11.01.2013, 14.01.2013 and 16.01.2013 shall stand withdrawn. He assures this court that the petitioner can meet him and if remedial measures are available to the petitioner, the petitioner will be informed so that there is necessary action even from the side of the petitioner. It is further stated by him that as certain tenders have been opened it may not be possible for the petitioner to participate in them but there is no such impediment for other tenders which are not opened and the petitioner may participate in them. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of. We appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents as also Col. Ballaney Rajesh.
-
2013 (2) TMI 866 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the liability of interest payable by the assessee. Ordered accordingly. No costs.’ Even otherwise the law is well settled that the payment of interest under the Act is compensatory in nature. The authorities shall re-do the exercise of calculating the interest and thereafter issue a fresh demand if they choose to recover the same. That would meet the ends of justice………………….” 8.4.1. In conformity with the directions of the Hon’ble Court (supra) we direct the AO to work out the liability of actual interest payable by the assessee. While doing so, the AO shall keep in view the ruling of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Solar Automobiles India (P) Ltd. DCIT which contained in the order of the Hon’ble Court (supra). It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the AYs 2004-05 to 2009-10 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of February, 2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ect the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on goodwill. ITA No.1033/Del/2011 - 10. In this appeal raised by the Revenue, the only ground raised is against cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 26,05,072/-. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 11. While deciding the assessee’s cross-objection above, we have held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill. Since the disallowance on the basis of which the penalty was levied has been deleted and a direction has been issued to allow the depreciation on goodwill, the basis for levy of penalty does not survive. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) wherein he has cancelled the penalty. 12. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 863 - ITAT COCHIN
Suppression of sales turnover in respect of sale of IMFL and cooked food, soft drinks / soda, etc. - Held that:- In this case it is not in dispute that the purchase made by the taxpayer was recorded in the books of account. It is not the case of the revenue that the taxpayer has purchased any IMFL outside the books of account. Therefore, there is no investment outside the books of account. As found by the PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES. [1999 (4) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] what is to be taken is only the profit element embedded in such suppressed turnover. CIT(A) has rightly found that what is to be added is only the profit element embedded in such transaction and not the entire turnover. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 862 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.¸Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv. ORDER Heard learned Solicitor General for India. Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 859 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... e opportunity of cross examination of M/s. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. inspite of specific request made by the assessee vide his letter dated 30th November 2007. Non-providing opportunity of cross examination amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. In the light of the fact, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and think it proper to send back this matter to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to provide opportunity to the assessee to cross examination of M/s. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, considering the various decisions cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative. The CIT(A) will decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The assessee is at liberty to file necessary evidence in support of it’s claim and the same shall be considered by the CIT(A) afresh. 10 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (2) TMI 855 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... Vs. DCIT, 12 SOT 438, whereby it was held that mobile cranes registered as heavy motor vehicle are eligible for depreciation at the rate of 40 , allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Similar facts are involved here in the present facts of the case. Learned CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the concrete mixers cannot be used separately without motor lorry as the same is being fitted on the chassis of motor lorry. The concrete mixer cannot be used independently without motor lorry as goods stored in concrete mixer have to be transported while storing in the concrete mixer, therefore, it was treated that this is a part of motor lorry and higher depreciation is allowable. This finding of the learned CIT(A), in our considered view, are reasonable finding. Accordingly, we confirm the decision of the learned CIT(A) for both of the years. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed. Order pronounced in the E-Court on this 6th day of Feb,2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 854 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... the other hand, learned DR fairly stated that though the earlier order of learned CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal, however, he placed reliance on the order of learned CIT(A). 4. After considering the submission of the assessee and perusing the material on record, we found no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A). On identical facts, similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee in the assessment year 2006-07 and the order of the learned CIT(A) has been confirmed which is placed on record. Since the facts are similar, therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A), who has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee for the year under consideration following the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) for the year under consideration. 5. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the E-Court on this 1st day of Feb,2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 852 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee in the year under appeal? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of provision for doubtful loans debited to the P & L Account without appreciating that such disallowance called for under the amended provision of Section 36(1)(vii) is covered in rule 5 of the first Schedule read with Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
-
2013 (2) TMI 851 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law - (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is a trader and not an investor in shares ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the membership card of BSE ?
-
2013 (2) TMI 846 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... apital loss of ₹ 35,58,718/on account of redemption of preference shares?” 3 Since the Tribunal in the impugned order has allowed the claim of the Respondent-Assessee by following the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Anarkali Sarabhai v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 224 ITR 422, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 843 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hough such products were developed on behalf of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA and not on its own account ? 2. So, far as Question 'A' is concerned, the Counsel for the parties states that the issue raised in the above question stand covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue, by the decision of this Court in I.T. A.No.2170/2009 in the respondent-assessee's own case rendered on 8th January, 2013. Inview of the above, we see no reason to entertain the Question 'A'. 3. So far as Question 'B' is concerned, the Counsel for the parties states that issue raised in the above question was raised in Income Tax Appeal No.3548 of 2010 in respondent assessee's own case. By an order dated 20th September, 2011, this court refused to entertain Income tax Appeal No.3548 of 2010. For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 20th September, 2011, we do not entertain the Question 'B'. 4. Appeal is admitted on Question 'C' above.
-
2013 (2) TMI 840 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... connected issue is regarding disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 94,56,000/- on the reasoning that this advance is out of borrowed funds. The facts apropos this issue are that during assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2006-07 on examination of the copy of the accounts of assessee-company's main director Shri Gaj Singh it was noticed that a debit balance of Rs. 3,01,30,422/- (Rs. 2,22,86,764/- Rs. 77,43,658/-) has been shown but on that amount no interest has been charged. The reasons for not charging interest on this amount given by the assessee and the reasons for disallowance of deemed interest exactly identical to the preceding, issue regarding advance of Rs. 5 crores to its sister concern. Accordingly, with similar reasons, which apply mutatis mutandis this ground also, we order to delete the impugned addition and decide this issue. 58. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 15th February 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 838 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - Applicability of section 50C on leasehold properties - Held that:- It is a case of deemed ownership, itself creates a doubt that whether there has to be an application of section 50C or not. This doubt, in our considered opinion is fatal to invocation of provisions of section 263, because provision of section 263 cannot be invoked where the issue becomes debatable, because if the issue is debatable it goes out of the scope of administration provisions but would fall in the realm of judicial provisions, which is not the purpose and context of section 263, which, in our opinion is to deal only on two realms simultaneously, i.e. whether the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
In the instant case, the CIT, by invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 stepped on the correctness and questioned the applicability of section 50C on leased property in the SCN, he, therefore transgressed into the judicial territory, which he cannot.
CIT could not have invoked the jurisdiction under section 263 without his own independent application of mind; on otherwise debatable issues and by merely disagreeing on the view taken by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (2) TMI 831 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u./s.80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act of ₹ 4,42,18,673/- for the A.Y. 2006-07 when the assessee had completed by 31/3/2008 only 11 out of 20 buildings comprised in the housing project in respect of which approval had been sanctioned by the local authority on 29/4/2003?
-
2013 (2) TMI 829 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... therefore, it was concluded that the assessee has inflated the profits for taking deduction u/s 80IC and a sum of ₹ 1,60,030/- was disallowed out of interest. 10. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was mainly stated that it was not mandatory under the law that the assessee should pay interest to every party and reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 345/Chd/2011. 11. Both the parties made similar arguments as made in respect of ground No. 1, therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for the assessee to pay interest on every unsecured loans and it depend on the arrangement between the parties, therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 345/Chd/2011 regarding non-charging of interest on partner’s capital is equally applicable to this issue also and accordingly we decide this issue against the Revenue. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27.2.2013.
........
|
