|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 6519 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1411
Allowance of the claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Act – Held that:- The possession of the property has already been given by the assessee - the registration which was made on 1-9-2005 was a formality - the crucial date of transfer has to be taken into consideration as 16-4-2005 - Even and otherwise, the assessee has invested huge amounts before this date and the assessee claimed deduction only of Rs.33 lakhs or odd – there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) – The deduction u/s 54F allowed - Relying upon ACIT Vs. Dr. P.S.Pasricha [2008 (1) TMI 649 - ITAT MUMBAI] - the deduction under Section 54F is allowable even the funds were taken on loan – decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1410
Addition on account of unexplained investment based on statement – Held that:- during the course of search statement u/s 132(4) was recorded of the assessee by which it was admitted that he will disclose a sum of Rs. 60 Lakh for the year in consideration and amount of Rs. 65 Lakh for assessment year 2008-09 - while filing the return no such amount was declared by the assessee as assessee retracted from the statement, for the reasons that no such investment was made in shares as only Rs. 2.50 lakh was given as advance on account of purchase of share - Neither there was any purchase was made by the assessee nor any incriminating documents were found.
If there no shares were purchased and assessee has paid only 2.50 Lakh in advance then ofcourse, addition should not have been made only on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4) - there should be some corroborative evidence – but there was no corroborative evidence found from which it can be said that assessee has made investment of Rs. 60 Lakh - Only on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) this addition has been made and sustained - no addition could be made or sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at the time of survey/search - AO made addition on the basis of statement recorded and no other enquiry has been made, neither case has been examined properly, nor the fact that the company in which the assessee is a director has surrendered additional income – The matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer –Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1409
Object of “general public utility” – Held that:- Following the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 - On performance in the nature of Dance, Drama, Music education and making auditorium available for school and colleges, theatre groups and taking nominal charges for making the auditorium available for such activities cannot be termed as unreasonable – The assessee was considered as charitable organization – Activity of making available to other institution for the purpose of promoting dance, drama music etc. is in the nature of charitable activities and same does not result in any earning to the trust - To earn income for the purpose of carrying on the charitable activities, the trust had partly let out the premises so as to earn regular income - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1408
Additions on account of undisclosed stock - Non-granting adequate opportunity to produce the evidences – Held that:- The assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity to explain the stock of jewellery in respect of the customers who had given the gold jewellery for making the ornaments - The assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity to explain the issues in the course of assessment - The additions had been made only on surmises and conjectures without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the individual items - The assessee has produced certain fresh evidences before the Tribunal in the form of affidavits – The issue was restored to AO for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1407
Disallowance u/s 37(1) – Held that:- The AO has only disallowed these expenditures because he is of the view that such expenditure need not be incurred when the assessee has income assessable as per the provisions of section 48 of the Act - The assessee is a company and the expenditure was required to be incurred as the company had to maintain its staff and office as also the management fees had to be incurred in respect of various investments that the assessee did in the course of its business - The ld. CIT(A) has considered the fact that the assesee is an investor and is in the business of making investments the income from some of which are exempt from tax – Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1406
Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit – Agricultural income form land - Held that:- a person can be expected to have a reasonable cash in hand when he is having the bank account - Nothing has been brought on record by either of the parties what was the position of the attempts made by the assessee and what was the standard of the family of the assessee - The agricultural income have been accepted during the year and to that extent the Revenue has allowed the credit to the assessee, while accepting the course of the deposit of Rs.4 lakhs to the extent of Rs.2,10,360 - It cannot be denied that the assessee was not having any opening cash in hand – Partly allowed in favour of the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1405
Deduction u/s 80HHC – Whether loss can be set off against duty drawback received - Held that:- in view of amendment made by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1992 by inserting Fifth proviso to section 80HHC(3) - The total turnover of the assessee is export turnover - Assessee is entitled to set off 90% of the incentive received by way of duty draw back against loss in respect of its trading activity - Assessee is entitled to get the deduction u/s.80HHC – Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1386
Determination of annual letting value u/s 23(1)(a) - Whether interest free deposit received is part of annual lettable value u/s 23(1)(a)- Held that:- The assessee has himself declared the actual rent which is much higher than the municipal value of the property - The assessee, otherwise could have insisted the AO to adopt the municipal value which is less than the actual rent claimed by the assessee - This act of the assessee itself shows that the claim is bona fide in nature which prima facie appears that there is no concealment in respect of the actual rent received by the assessee and also the assessee has not inflated/deflated the rental income by reason of any extraneous consideration - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1372
Interest earned on non-SLR funds - Held that:- Following CIT v. The Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd [2009 (7) TMI 1150 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Whether the business is derived from or attributable to SLR or non-SLR funds would not make any difference for the purposes of qualifying the interest earned by the cooperative bank under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) as the deposits of surplus idle money available from working capital, including reserves, excess collection of interest tax and other incomes are all attributable to the business of banking - The interest from such deposits cannot be said to be beyond the legitimate business activities of the bank - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1371
Whether sale proceeds claimed during assessment proceedings be accepted - Held that:- It is a question of fact which has been decided by the Tribunal - The Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee - No substantial question of law arises before High Court - Decided against Revenue.
Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - Held that:- Following CIT Vs. Ranchi Club Ltd [2000 (8) TMI 79 - SUPREME Court] - Even if any provision of law is mandatory and provides for charging of tax or interest - Such charge by the assessing officer should be specific and clear and assessee must be made to know that the assessing officer has applied its mind and has ordered charging of interest - The mandatory nature of charging of interest and the actual charging of interest by application of mind and the mention of the proviso of law under which such interest is charged are two different things - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1370
Difference in value of stock as per stock statement submitted to bank and stocks as per books - Held that:- The assessee's income was to be assessed on the basis of the material required to be considered for the assessment and not on the basis of the statements given to third party - The burden of showing undisclosed income was on the revenue - That burden cannot be said to be discharged by referring to the statements given by the assessee to the bank, and making it the foundation for adding the difference in the stock as his income - The CIT had accepted the books of accounts and had found that all the purchases and sales are vouched - The stock registers were maintained by the assessee in ordinary course of business - No defects were pointed out in maintenance of such registers, nor there was any other information or material to doubt their correctness - The statements given by the assessee to the bank for obtaining overdraft facility, in the practice prevalent to overstate the stocks to obtain overdraft facility could not be treated to add the entire difference and that too in respect to only one of the items namely the 'zinc' - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1369
Share application money received - Held that:- The disputed share application money was received through banking channels and names, address, PAN Nos. supported by confirmation, copies of bank account, copies of application for return of shares, copies of annual accounts of share applicants, copies of return of income of share applicants and affidavits of the office bearers of the applicant companies were submitted before the revenue authorities and all these details were confronted to the Assessing Officer - When the identity of the share applicants is proved by the assessee and the AO has not brought any adverse material or fact against the share applicants, then no addition can be made in the hands of appellants - The Assessing Officer could not prove that the money received by the assessee from alleged three companies in the form of share application money had come from the own sources of the assessee - Following C.I.T. vs Lovely Export P. Ltd [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - No evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to prove that the share application money emanated from the coffers of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has not made any inquiries from the concerned authorities nor did he examine the assessment record of the share applicants - Decided against Revenue.
Correlation between cash deposits and cheques issued - Held that:- The disputed cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals made from the same bank on earlier occasions and as per remand report, the Assessing Officer was satisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee - When the balance matches with the balance sheet and cash book, no addition u/s 68 of the Act is sustainable - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1368
Disallowance of interest free advances - Held that:- CIT (A) has failed to pass a speaking order regarding whether the judgement in case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd [2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] is applicable or not - The assessee failed to demonstrate with evidences and details about the nexus between the interest free advances given and the interest free loans taken by the assessee - The issue was restored for adjudication.
Profit on sale of shares - Held that:- Profits cannot be taxed twice, one on account of assessee's own offer in the AY 2009-2010; and secondly on account of taxation by the Assessing Officer - CIT (A) needs to take a consistent stand in this regard and is required to pass a speaking order considering the fact that the same income should not be taxed twice - The issue was restored for adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1367
Unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- On perusal of documents impounded during search which are ways and means account and balance sheet and copy of bank statement of Andhra Bank, there were entries with reference to the deposits and corresponding withdrawals - The genuineness of these transactions have been demonstrated by Assessee by way of documentary evidence - Since the assessment was made based on the ways and means statement, the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by giving a categorical finding that it is clear from the ways and means account that Assessee had sufficient funds to deposit the amounts in the Banks - Decided against Revenue.
Discharge of income tax liability before proceedings - Held that:- Assessee had paid the tax before the appeal was heard by the CIT(A), therefore, the ground is not material - Facts on record indicate that assessee discharged the tax liability by the time CIT(A) heard the case - Decided against Revenue.
Unexplained income - Held that:- Copy of ways and means account, and copies of bank statement of account from Andhra Bank, Tirupathi and Bank of Baroda are placed to establish that the entries of the said deposits have been appeared in the said statements - Since Assessee has proved the genuineness of his claim by way of documentary evidence - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1366
Unexplained investment in jewellery - Held that: - The assessee explained the source of acquisition of the jewellery worth about Rs. 38 lakhs with the help of jewellery reports and purchase bills - Though item-wise detail was not submitted, but the weight and the value of the jewellery was submitted by the assessee in the valuation report which was further verified by the AO during the remand proceedings and he did not point out any defect or suspicion regarding validity of the same - The balance of addition is explained by the fact of receiving of gifts - The evidences submitted by the assessee itself were sufficient in the absence of any contrary evidence to show any suspicion about the genuinity of the said documents - The assessee even has filed the statements of jewellery in his Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2006-07 - It is also very common that as per the customs and practices prevalent in our country, the jewellery/gold etc. is gifted by the relatives and friends of a person at the time of certain occasions like marriages, birth of a child, birthdays, marriage anniversaries etc - The quantum and the worth of the gifts also depend upon the social as well as financial status not only of the donor but of the donee also - It cannot be said to be a case of unexplained jewellery - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1365
Validity of determining the ALV by adding notional interest on the interest free deposit - Held that:- When the actual rent declared by the assessee is more than the ratable value fixed by the municipal authorities, there is no reason to disbelieve the actual rent declared by the assessee - It is not warranted on the part of the AO to determine the income by taking the fair market rent of comparable properties let out in the localities by ignoring the ratable value fixed by the municipal authorities for arriving at the annual letting value - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1364
Issue regarding the relevant head of income - Held that:- If an income falls under more than one head, the assessee has the option of choosing for the purpose of income tax, such head which makes the burden on his shoulders lighter - In the absence of any evidence brought by the authorities below to disprove/disbelieve the claim of the assessee treating the impugned receipt under the head 'business income', the authorities below are not justified in treating the same under the head 'income from other sources' - Admission by the assessee made during the survey cannot be the sole basis for taking a decision by the revenue authorities during the assessment proceedings.
Disallowance of interest paid to firm - Held that:- As per clause 12 of the Partnership deed, the partners are entitled to interest on the credit balance in the capital account, as prescribed u/s 40(b)(iv) of the I.T. Act 1961 @ 12% - The partners are also liable to pay interest on the debit balance in capital account on similar basis - the claim of the assessee is emanating out of contractual obligation and is in consonance with the provisions of law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1363
Validity of order u/s 263 - Revision by CIT - Erroneous and prejudicial to revenue order - Held that:- Following assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2004-05 - The deprecation claimed by the assessee has been accepted by the Assessing Officer - The items are in the same block and hence, depreciation cannot be disallowed this year - the Revenue cannot be allowed to change its view with regard to a fundamental aspect of a transaction taken in earlier assessment year unless it is able to demonstrate a change in circumstances in the subsequent assessment year - The respondent cannot under Sec.263 interfere on an issue which has been accepted by the Revenue for a number of years particularly when the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the assessment year 2006-07 takes the same view by terming it erroneous as the respondent is able to demonstrate a change in circumstances in the said assessment year - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1362
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee declared income from capital gains as when realized by him that such income has inadvertently not returned - No show cause notice was issued before 20.02.2004, the revised computation filed by the assessee on the said date cannot be said to declare additional income of the assessee after detection of concealment by the department - Following AVR Prasad vs. ITO [2005 (8) TMI 308 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B] - Penalty cannot be levied if any income is voluntarily declared before any concealment is detected - The Assessing Officer has not found the explanation furnished by the assessee to be false - Penalty cannot be levied if any bona fide mistake is involved - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1361
Bond issue expenses - Capital or revenue in nature - Held that:- Following 'India Cement Ltd. vs. CIT [1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court] - A loan obtained cannot be treated as an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of the business of the assessee; that where the borrowal was incidental to the carrying on of the assessee's business, the expenditure was for securing the use of the money for a certain period - The bond issued was not entitled for conversion into shares and that being so, raising of funds through such bond issue cannot be termed as raising of capital by issuance of shares - Decided against Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
