|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 401 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 826 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nfined to the registration granted under clause (b) of sub-section 1 of section 12AA till before 1st June, 2010 of course, now with effect from 1st June, 2010, the power vests with the Commissioner even to cancel the registration granted under any of the clauses of sub-section (1) of section 12A. In that view of interpretation, we are of the considered view that there was no power vested with the Commissioner to cancel or withdraw the registration granted to the assessee under section 12A(a) in the year 1974.? Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) cancelling the registration of the respondent under section 12A was invalid inasmuch as the Director Income-tax (Exemptions) did not have the jurisdiction to do so till 01.06.2010 when the amendment was introduced in section 12AA(3) as indicated above. No other question of law has been sought to be raised in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 825 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Trading loss - Application of principles of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and perversity of approach - Held that:- The opinion that the assessee generated a sizeable amount of loss out of pre-arranged transactions so as to reduce the quantum of income liable for tax might have been the view expressed by the AO, but he miserably failed to substantiate that. We are sorry to say that the learned Tribunal fell into the same error. One can generate a loss inter alia by suppressing his income or by selling his goods at an under value.
It is nobody’s case that the assessee either suppressed any income or sold anything at an under value. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that any loss was generated. Loss might have been suffered. If the loss was suffered, then appropriate deduction has to be made and there is no reason why the Assessing Officer should have refused to do so. Tribunal restored the order of the Assessing Officer and set aside the order passed by the CIT (Appeal) without application of mind. Tribunal ignored the fact that the transaction was carried out at the prevailing price. Therefore, the question of generating loss could not have arisen. The suspicion entertained by the Assessing Officer was misplaced or in any event not substantiated.
-
2013 (2) TMI 818 - ITAT KOLKATA
Compensation loss on non lifting of materials of as speculative loss - Held that:- It is a situation in which there could not have been any possibility of actual delivery of the goods because even at the point of time when delivery was to take place, the factory was not even likely to come back to the possession of the assessee. The factory was given on lease and as such the purchases cannot be said to have been made for bonafide actual user purposes. CIT(Appeals) has painstakingly analyzed the various contract provision - namely clause 7 to 9, these clauses have inbuilt speculation element embedded in the agreement. The factum of actual non delivery or impact of non delivery could be relevant only in the cases in which genuine business transactions are involved. On the facts of the present cases, these aspects are not really relevant. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) and decline to interfere in the matter.
Nature of expenditure - loss on cancellation of booking of 100 TPD Klin, proposed expansion of steel unit - Held that:- We find that in the case of CIT-vs.- Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. (2002 (7) TMI 44 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) was in seisin of a situation in which advance was paid to acquire land for expansion of business but since land was not acquired, no capital asset came into existence and there was no question of allowing depreciation on the said asset. On these facts, Their Lordships upheld the view that since no land was acquired and no capital asset came into existence, the loss of advance was to be allowed as business loss. In this view of the matter, and having noted that the loss was incurred in connection with expansion of existing business, we are of the considered view that loss of advance has to be allowed as a revenue deduction of business loss. The question of expense being capital in nature would have arisen only if the machinery was actually acquired; that is not the case here.
-
2013 (2) TMI 817 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... heet and considered to be an investment. The dividend earned was ₹ 8.36 lacs on the investment of ₹ 2.77 crores also establishes that the intention of the respondent was to earn dividend income. Moreover, as observed by the CIT(A) the respondent-assessee was a busy Doctor and would not have time to deal in share transaction on day to day basis. Thus, the Tribunal on the above facts concluded that income earned on sale of shares held for less than six months are to be taxed under the head Capital Gain. Moreover, we are informed that even for the earlier assessment years gain on sale of shares has been taxed by the revenue as short term capital gain and not as business income. 4) In view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal taxing the gain made on sale of shares under the capital gain is based on a concurrent finding of fact, no question of law arises. Thus, we do not entertain this appeal. 5) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 813 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s was with the revenue at all times from the date of seizure in July, 2006. In this view of the matter, the distinction sought to be made by Mr. Chhotaray between request being made in a letter for adjustment of the seized amounts from that of a request being made in a statement made under Sections 132(4) of the Act is not a distincion which would warrant non application of the decision of this Court in the matter of Jyotiendra B.Modi (supra). In these circumstances, the amount of ₹ 41 lakhs seized during the course of the search be adjusted / considered while computing the interest leviable under Sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. 6. Accordingly, in our view the question as framed stands itxal-1646-12covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Jyotindra B. Mody (supra). Thus, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 811 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ssessment has been completed after taking into account the explanations and the evidences what-so-ever filed by the appellant and which have been duly considered by the A.O., the appellant could not have any grievance as far as just mentioning by the A.O. that the assessment has been completed u/s 144 of the Act is concerned. Even otherwise, the evidence or the explanation further sought to be considered by the Ld. Counsel have been duly considered before the A.O. and during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are in a way infructuous and these need not be discussed in detail.” 23. In view of the above fact-situation and findings of ld. CIT(Appeals), the ground of appeal, raised by the assessee is dismissed. 24. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA 944/Chd/2009 is dismissed. 25. Resultantly, all the three appeals (ITA No. 944, 945 & 946/Chd/2009) of the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th Feb., 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 809 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tantial question of law. “Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the benefit received by the Appellant on account of the policy on wind power generation was capital in nature and, therefore, not liable to tax ?”
-
2013 (2) TMI 800 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Held that:- Assessing Officer was not justified in observing that the assessee is not eligible for deduction since commencement certificate and completion certificate are not in the name of the assessee.
Construction of even one building with several residential units of the size not exceeding 1000 square feet ('E' building in the present case) would constitute a 'housing project' under Section 80IB(10) of the Act.
Gram panchayat Keshav Nagar, Mundhwa, Pune, is local authority for the purpose of issuing completion certificate for claiming deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of profit from sale of eligible flats in project in question. Assessee fulfilled all conditions laid down for claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10)
-
2013 (2) TMI 798 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e time of search, no lady member had stated her ornaments to be lying at the business premises and that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of such contention either before the CIT(A) or before the ITAT?” (iii) “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in directing to give benefit of telescoping even in respect of recurring deposit accounts and thus restoring the issue in respect of addition made of ₹ 2,39,028/- made on a/c of bank deposits to the file of A.O.? Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we notice that out of three questions, the Tribunal has remanded two issues back for afresh consideration. As can be noted, the Tribunal granted second inning to the assessee particularly first issue, which involves large revenue implication. The Tribunal gave proper reasons for remanding the matter and that therefore, in our opinion, no question of law arises. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 796 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ons made before the authorities below. 42. After considering the rival submissions of both the parties and material on record, it is noticed that the A.O. in the assessment order nowhere stated that this income was assessed as income from other sources. However, income has been added separately in the income worked out from total contract income. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the issue in favour of the assessee by stating that the A.O. had not given any reason for taking this income as income from other sources. As we have already pointed out that the facts related to this issue are not clear, we therefore, deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the A.O. to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 43. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the department is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Court on 14.02.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 791 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mprehensive details, as certified, in the paper book, before the revenue authorities. We are also aware, from going through the APB that identical facts had been accepted in the preceding year in her own case in the scrutiny proceedings, and identical position that of the assessee in the current year, has been accepted in scrutiny proceedings of the assessee’s daughter and husband, i.e. Ms. Kaitki Mehta and Mr. Satish Mehta. As cited by the AR, and as extracted by us in the order, the decision of Gopal Purohit (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has insisted upon to follow a consistent view, which according to us, the assessee had done and which, the department has failed to demolish. 13. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT(A), on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition made and accept the contentions of the assessee, as claimed. 14. The appeal filed by the assessee, therefore, allowed. Order pronounced on 27th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 790 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ds No. 2 & 3 hereinabove, in the absence of any explanation with regard to cash credits mentioned in these grounds No.5, 6,7, & 8 of the assessee are dismissed. 15. As regards grounds No. 9, 10 & 11, all these grounds are related to the double taxation with regard to the amount offered as income in the following years, which has been decided by us, in the respective grounds of appeal and therefore, do not require any separate adjudication. Since all the grounds of the assessee have been dismissed and grounds No.9,10 & 11 are part of such grounds, therefore, grounds No. 9, 10 & 11 which do not require separate adjudication are dismissed. 16. As regards ground No.12 with regard to charging of interest under section 234B, the same is mandatory and consequential in nature and therefore, do not require any adjudication. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.474(Asr)/2011 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 789 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t by order dated 5th March, 2012 refused to entertain an identical issue as raised by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (k). 12 So far as Question (l) is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has relied upon its own order in the Respondent Assessee's own case (being Income Tax Appeal No.4494/M/99 dated 28th July, 2008) to allow the claim of the Respondent Assessee. The Counsel for the Revenue states that the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 199495 has been accepted by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (l). 13 So far as Question (m) is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT(A) holding that non-compete fees were not taxable by following decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v/s. Narendra D. Desai reported in 214 CTR 190. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (m). 14 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 787 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e issue in favour of the assessee. As the present issue is similar to that of the issue referred to above, the findings recorded therein hold good for the present issue under consideration. In essence, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 18. In the result (i) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1252/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; (ii) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1243/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; (iii) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1244/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; (iv) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1247/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; (v) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1250/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; (vi) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1253/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; (vii) the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1254/A/2006 for the AY 2002-03 is partly allowed; Order pronounced in the open Court on 15-02-2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 784 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... reassessment framed, are similar in the present case as were in the case of P.T.M. Industries supra . In other words, the facts of both the cases are identical in all respects. Therefore, respectfully following the order dated 20.12.2012 of this Bench of the ITAT in the case ITO, Ward, Balotra Vs. M/s P.T.M. Industries supra in ITA Nos. 111,112 and 104/Jodhpur/2012 for A.Ys. 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). o p /o p 8. In ITA’s No. 220/JU/2011 and ITA No. 103/JU/2012 identical issue is involved and even the ld. CIT(A) followed his earlier order passed for A.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, our findings given in ITA No. 219/JU/2011 in the former part of this order relating to Assessment year 2005-06 shall apply mutatis mutandis for these Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 too. o p /o p 9. In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed. o p /o p Order Pronounced in the Court on 11.02.2013 o p /o p
-
2013 (2) TMI 783 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ent revenue authorities or by the Assessing Officer through some agencies. The assessee is also directed to get the demarcation and correct measurement by the competent authority.” The learned counsel for the assessee strongly relied upon the aforesaid decision. 6. The learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the government records should be given due weightage. However, he has not raised any serious objection for sending back the matter, for verification of the correct measurement of the plot area. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and consistent with the view taken by the ITAT “G” Bench Mumbai (supra) we set aside the matter to the file of the AO to reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made by the ITAT in the order for A.Y. 2006-07 7. In the result, as pronounced in the open court, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 782 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... dinate officers, he should have brought some material on record against the assessee and should have given opportunity of being heard to the assessee before taking contrary view in the matter. The ld. CIT instead of doing anything in lawful manner in the matter has merely agreed with the draft order of ITO (Tech.) despite he himself was not present on the date of passing the order in his office at Agra. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Considering the above discussion, in the light of order of ITAT in case of Shiksha Sankalp Society vs. CIT(supra) we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for registration u/s. 12AA of the IT Act. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and direct the CIT-II, Agra to grant registration to the assessee as per law, from financial year in which the application has been made within one month from the date of the order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (2) TMI 780 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , but nevertheless we are unable to agree with the argument that the levy of interest should have been after reducing the amount in terms of Section 132B of the Act. 20. Section l32B is for the purpose of realization of the tax liability and not on such levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act. It is therefore, we answer this question also in the negative as against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 21. In the result, all the substantial questions arising from the order of the Tribunal and which are the subject-matter of this appeal are answered against the Assessee and the appeal is allowed, setting aside the finding of the Tribunal on the findings involved these questions of law. But nevertheless make it clear that the answer regarding questions of law 1 and 2 as indicated in para 6 and 7 of the memorandum of appeal is subject to the result of the decision of Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the referred case involving question of levy on surcharge.
-
2013 (2) TMI 778 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, 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 figure of ₹ 30 lakhs, causing alleged serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is made out from the material on record, for filling the void of remaining period, alongwith other contemporaneous record 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 774 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... of carrying out work not by these sub-contractors, we are of the view that it will be fair and reasonable if 20 of the expenditure claimed as payment to sub-contractors is disallowed of which calculation comes to ₹ 12,35,225/- (20 of 61,76,126/-) (21,57,500 26,09,254 14,09,372/-). The addition to the extent of ₹ 12,35,225/- is confirmed and the balance addition of ₹ 49,40,901/- is deleted. 24. Ground nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to direction to the A.O. by CIT(A) to work out 11.2 profit in work-in-progress. This issue has been decided in Revenue’s appeal in ground no.3 vide paragraph no.11 of this order. As per the detailed discussion made in the said paragraph, these grounds of the assessee are allowed. 25. Grounds no.6 & 7 of assessee’s appeal are general in nature. 26. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
........
|
