|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 401 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 773 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal No.439 of 2012 rendered in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Ahmedabad South Indian Charitable Trust dated 09-08-2012. has dismissed Revenue’s appeal. In view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity into the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p 5. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed o p /o p Coming to Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2654/Ahd/2012 for A.Y. 08-09. o p /o p 6. Since the grounds raised Revenue are identical as in ITA No. 2653/Ahd/2012 and we have already discussed the issues in para-4 of this order, hence taking a consistent view in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 2653/Ahd/2012 this ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p 8. In combined result, both the appeal of Revenue are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page. o p /o p
-
2013 (2) TMI 771 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the old unit? o p /o p (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in failing to appreciate that unit-1 of the assessee has already exhausted its claim u/s.10A and the alleged new unit is a reconstruction of the old unit and as such the entire profits of the assessee for the F.Y. under consideration are taxable receipts? o p /o p (f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal passed the order without appreciating and evaluating all the relevant facts and evidences, including circumstantial evidences, not perverse ? o p /o p 2. Counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised in the assessee's own case in income Tax Appeal No.1209 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court on 6th February, 2013. For the reasons stated therein, we do not entertain the questions of law as formulated above. o p /o p 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.. o p /o p
-
2013 (2) TMI 770 - ITAT CHENNAI
Sale of land - agricultural land - held that:- Assessing Officer has conclusively established that the lands sold by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal for a consideration of ₹ 26,40,00,000/- were not agricultural in nature, but, on the other hand, they are nonagricultural land. Therefore, it definitely comes under the category of “capital asset”. Accordingly, the gains arising out of transfer of that capital asset is exigible to capital gains tax.
When the basic nature of the land itself found to be nonagricultural, the arguments regarding status of the property, whether within metropolis or outside the limit of the metropolis, is irrelevant. A non-agricultural property, whether inside the municipality or outside the municipality or even in a remote village is a “capital asset” and transfer of the same may generate income liable for capital gains taxation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on this point and restore the order of the Assessing Officer.
-
2013 (2) TMI 768 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ords, once the assessee produced the relevant record even after the finalization of the assessment, it cannot be punished under section 271AA of the “Act” as in such cases, there is yet another specific penalty provision inserted by the Legislature under section 271G of the “Act”, which admittedly has not been invoked here by the Revenue. Further, we also cautious of the law that there was nothing which could have stopped the Assessing Officer to make reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer qua the assessee’s international transaction with its associated enterprises and also, there is no addition made in the assessment proceedings. In the light of our above discussion, we see no reason to concur with the penalty in question imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Consequently, assessee’s appeal is allowed and the penalty in question stands deleted. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 14th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 767 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of water expenses to 10% - Reason for disallowance of water expenses by the AO is that the assessee is having well and there is no need for purchase of water from outside - AO had not given any opportunity to the assessee to show that the water expenses incurred by the assessee are excessive - Hence the disallowance is restricted to 5% of the claim - Decided partly in favor of assessee
Disallowance of fire wood expenses to 10% - Held that:- wood was purchased from local labourers and farmers - It is very difficult to obtain third party vouchers - AO has disallowed 100% of the cash purchase and 25% of the total expenses on purchases from regular registered dealers - As regard to registered dealers The AO has not verified any details and disallowance disallow was not based on any adverse evidences - thus AO is directed to delete the addition - in respect of cash purchases, the disallowance of 5% would meet the ends of justice - Decided partly in favor of assessee
Whether to consider the claim of interest free suppliers’ credit as capital receipt or revenue receipt - Held that:- An agreement with windmill supplier states that in case wind mill fails to generate electricity of the units mentioned in the agreement, the supplier of the wind mill shall compensate the assessee for such failure of generation - As per Ao the said amount received is only a compensation for loss of profit and hence a revenue receipt - The performance guarantee clause of agreement clearly suggests that compensation would be paid for generation loss which is loss of earnings only - Thus is is revenue receipt exigible to tax - Decided against the assessee
-
2013 (2) TMI 766 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... laim falling u/s 37. Hence, the assessee is entitled to succeed on this point and the relief claimed for all the four years is directed to be allowed. Since this is the only ground for the Assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79, these two appeals are allowed.” 6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for decline of claim of ₹ 55 lakhs actually paid to the LIC during the year under consideration on account of Group Gratuity Cum LIC Assurance Policy of its employees. 7. Similarly in the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee’s claim for contribution of ₹ 65 lakhs to LIC under the Group Gratuity-cum- Life Insurance Policy was declined. Following the same reasoning, as discussed above, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 27th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 765 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... interfere with those findings of ld.CIT(A), hence approve the same by rejecting the connected ground of the Revenue. 6. We have already taken a decision that the amount so determined by the ld.CIT(A) is required to be assessed in the hands of the assessee in the status of individual, therefore we hereby affirm an another finding of ld.CIT(A) that the claim of the business in the status of HUF was incorrect. Due to this reason, ground No.2 of the Revenue Department is non-maintainable, hence dismissed. Likewise, we find no force in ground No.3 of the Revenue in the light of the above discussion. 7. As far as Cross Objection of the assessee is concerned, since a view has already taken that the part relief was rightly granted and the income belonged to the assessee in individual capacity, therefore, the objection raised in the Cross Objection of the assessee is hereby rejected. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal as also cross objection of the Assessee both are dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 764 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... erms and conditions of the lease agreement. In fact once depreciation is allowed to lessor in the earlier year, leased assets are already part of block of assets in that year and thereafter what is followed in subsequent year is only WDV of that asset which goes on reducing by granting depreciation on year to year basis. Changing the texture of the decision in-between the years can only create confusion and pose the difficulties in passing consequential order. 5.3 The above being the mistakes apparent from record, the applicant requests Hon’ble Bench to rectify the same and follow the order of earlier years in its own case in the interest of justice by suitably modifying the impugned order. 2. We have considered the assessee’s application and accordingly, we allow the miscellaneous application. The Registry is directed to fix the case before the regular Bench. 3. In the result, the M.A. of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 22.02.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 763 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... see made a claim which was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice to the legal position at the relevant point of time. The penalty in question is emerging on account of original claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10). The issue of deduction u/s.80IB(10) was debatable issue at relevant point of time. The assessee has disclosed all the relevant facts and acted bonafide. It was only difference of opinion between assessee and the Assessing Officer and assessee accepted the opinion of the Assessing Officer and withdrawn the claim, instead of preferring an appeal for reasons known to it. It is settled legal position that penalty is not automatic after quantum addition. Both penalty as well as quantum addition stands in its own spheres. In this background, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty in question which needs no interference from our side. 4. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 762 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ), the Tribunal is right in holding that Government or Statutory body is the developer of infrastructure facility and here appellant is not entitled to deduction under that section ? 3. The Tribunal, while dismissing the Assessee's Appeal, followed its order for assessment year 2003-2004 while denying the deduction claimed under section 80 IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. The order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2003-2004 has been set aside by this Court in Appeal filed by the Appellant being I.T. Appeal No.4610 of 2010 on 30th August, 2011 and restored to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 30th August, 2011, we set aside the impugned order relating to assessment year 2004-2005 and restore the matter to the file of the Tribunal, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. All the contentions of parties are kept open to be urged before the Tribunal. 5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 761 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ector of Incometax( Exemption) for fresh examination of the matter. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Director of Income-tax(Exemption) and restore the matter to his file to reconsider the application filed by the assessee afresh. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the matter, by making proper compliance with the notices/letters of the Director of Income-tax(Exemption), as otherwise, the Director of Income-tax(Exemption) would be at liberty to draw his own inferences based on the material available on record and dispose of the matter accordingly. The Director of Income-tax(Exemption) is directed to examine the application of the assessee for registration under S.12AA of the Act afresh, and pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 22.02.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 760 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... essing Officer os before passing of the order of the CIT (Appeals) also. In view thereof, the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) levied penalty of ₹ 10,000. The assessee had failed to furnish the evidence of issue/dispatch of the letters to deductees and hence there is no merit in the plea of the assessee that it had complied with the provisions to the extent it was possible at his end. The provisions of section 272B(1) of the Act provide that if a person failed to comply with the provision of section 139A, the Assessing officer may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of ₹ 10,000/-. In view of the above said provisions of the act we are in agreement with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in levying penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under section 272B of the Act. Thus ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open court on 28 day of February, 2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 759 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... at investments were made from interest fee funds at the disposal of the assessee. The facts of the instant case abundantly show that the shareholders fund is much more than the amount advanced by the assessee without any interest to its sister concerns. Respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition under the present circumstances. We, therefore, order for the deletion of addition. Ground no.5 is allowed.” 11. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) delete the disallowance of interest of ₹ 22,50,264/- made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 12. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8-02-2013 .
-
2013 (2) TMI 758 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition made u/s.14A - Held that:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd.[2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from AY 2008-2009 onwards. The provisions of Rule 8D are statutorily mandatory and any working of disallowance u/s 14A is required to be worked out as per formula provided in Rule 8D(2) only. As the appellant itself had offered disallowance u/s 14A more than the disallowance worked out under 14A AO was not justified in disallowing further expenditure u/s 14A.
-
2013 (2) TMI 757 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that the addition has been wrongly made without appreciating the fact that the PE in India has to be treated as separate entity and the interest payable by the said PE is to be taxed in India in the hands of GE as income ? - Held YES - The question as framed is in respect of payment of interest by PE to GE when issue is interest earned by the PE from its head office. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the respondent-assessee's claim for deduction on the ground that one cannot earn income from oneself.
Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that the addition is wrongly made without appreciating the fact that the proviso to Section 36(1)(viia) states clearly that deduction of bad debts shall be limited to the amount by which such debt exceeds the balance in the provision account made u/s.36(1)(viia) ? - Held YES - instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) being instruction No.17/2008 dated 26th November, 2008 covers the issue in favour of the respondent-assessee.
Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that interest expenses claimed by the assessee is not a deduction but it is an expenditure and it is not the case of the revenue that these expenditures are not allowable in the regular course of business of the assessee without appreciating the fact that there are no provisions in the Act which allow change in computation of income by the assessee by reasons of modification of account, otherwise than by filing revised return ? - Held YES
Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that section 44C is not applicable and these expenses are allowable u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act - Held YES - See Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [ 2003 (4) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]
-
2013 (2) TMI 756 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... consideration as there ought to be uniformity and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical, particularly in the case of the assessee and Tribunal was held to be right in allowing the claim of the assessee on the basis of consistency. It was found that revenue did not submit any justification for adopting divergent approach for the assessment year in question. Therefore, we hold the assessee’s activity in sale and purchase of shares cannot not be held to be an activity giving rise to the income assessable under the head income from business or profession. The sole instance of IPO funding availed by the assessee with a view to get more allotment cannot also be said to have converted the activity of the assessee of sale and purchase of shares from “investment” to the activity of “business”. 9. In view of the above discussions the appeal filed by the assesee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 20th day of Feb.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 755 - ITAT CHENNAI
Whether loan taken was utilized for acquiring fixed can be considered as application of income u/s 11 - Can depreciation be considered as application of income - can set off of excess expenditure of earlier years be allowed when there is no such claim in the return - Held that:- Acquisition of fixed assets was only for the purpose of Trust - Loan raised is never income derived from the property held under trust - Utilization of such loan will also be not an application of income derived from property held under trust - Contention of the assessee that once loan had gone into common kitty, a presumption has to be taken that money expended for acquiring capital asset had first gone out of own funds and then out of loan funds, cannot be accepted - Decided against the assessee
Held that:- While computing the income of the Trust, commercial principle had to be followed and depreciation had to be allowed - depreciation has to be considered as an application of income derived from property held under Trust - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- Trust was entitled to set off the amount of excess application of income of prior years against deficiency of current year - claim of the assessee ought have been entertained if such claim was found factually correct
-
2013 (2) TMI 754 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition on account of interest claimed by the Assessee u/s. 36(1) (iii) - Held that:- It is well established proposition that when the Revenue fails to establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and the funds diverted/lent, any denial of allowances of interest under Section 36[1](iii) is not permissible. In the instant case, as both the authorities have held concurrently on the basis of material available that sufficient amount of interest-free funds were available with the assessee-respondent and therefore also, there is no justification in interfering with the decision of both these authorities. Resultantly, the question of law proposed is answered accordingly.
-
2013 (2) TMI 753 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... imated by the assessee. In view of the above, we are left with no option but to presume that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals filed before the Tribunal. 15. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar - 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss these appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-furnishing of intimation regarding change of address etc., if any, and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons so furnished, then this order shall be recalled. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 22nd February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 751 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of expenditure on Wills World Cup - Held that:- The entire advertisement expenses has already been allowed in the assessment year 1996-97, the same cannot be allowed in the subsequent year. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
Applicability of provisions of section 115JA to bank - Held that:- In view of the situation that the second ground of appeal which has been vehemently argued by both the parties does not emanate from the impugned order of the CIT(A), it would not be possible for the Tribunal to adjudicate the same. The issue was not raised by the assessee by following proper procedure by raising the same as additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed
There is no question of allowing depreciation on land to the assessee
Bad debts written off in respect of rural advances
........
|
