|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 6519 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 841
Deduction u/s 80IA - export benefit adjustments - Held that:- considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT) to the facts of the present case, the ITAT has materially erred in holding that the export benefit adjustment amounting to Rs.1,79,05,996/- should be included while computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favor of revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 840
Cash Credit u/s 68 - whether source of source should be proved by the appellant? - Held that:- It appears that the assessee relied upon number of decisions of the jurisdictional High Court as well as the learned Tribunal. However, none of them have been dealt with and/or discussed and/or appreciated by the learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned order. In para-9, the learned Tribunal has observed that “due to these reasons, the case laws relied upon by the assessee do not come to its rescue”. Except the above, there is no appreciation and/or consideration by the learned Tribunal with respect to the decisions relied upon by the assessee. - Matter remanded back for fresh decision.
-
2013 (12) TMI 839
Reducing eligible business profit, while granting deduction under Section 80HHC, by gross interest income as against net interest - Held that:- for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act net interest is to be excluded. In the present case, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the ITAT has held that for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the gross interest is to be excluded. The aforesaid cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules PVT. LTD (2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 838
Deduction u/s 80HHC - excise duty and sales-tax receipts - Held that:- Applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Machine Works (2007 (4) TMI 202 - SUPREME Court), question no. (A) is answered against the revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 837
Deduction under Section 80HH and 80I - process of texturising of yarn - manufacturing activity or not - Held that:- applying the ratio/law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Yashasvi Yarn Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT) and in the case of Emptee Poly-Yarn P. Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the question formulated/raised in the present Tax Appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and consequently the impugned common order is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the assessee shall be entitled to the deduction under Section 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act by holding that the process of twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 836
Whether the appellant had incurred an additional expenditure for additional construction of one room and renovation - valuation report - Held that:- the assessing officer will have the other materials supplied by the assessee to know what exactly was the material used and what was the prevailing rate of such material apart from ascertaining the rates from PWD department which rate varies from time to time. Ultimately the assessing officer would take into consideration what was the prevailing rates of PWD in the State of Kerala adopted for the particular assessment year in order to arrive at the cost of renovation and construction claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07.
The orders of the three authorities based on the Central PWD rates is set aside by remanding back the matter to the assessing officer who shall rely upon the report of the District Valuation Officer at Thiruvananthapuram so far as value of the renovation and cost of construction for the assessment year 2006-07 and then proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 835
Transfer of case of a partnership firm - contravention, principles of natural justice and violation of Section 127 - Held that:- Rightly in this case, a show-cause notice was issued and the petitioner was provided an opportunity to make objections and after considering the objections, this impugned order of transfer was made. The question is as to whether the transfer order has been communicated and whether it is required to be communicated. Though Section 127(2) of the Act does not speak about the communication of the order, but any order affects the party is to be communicated.
The impugned order is to be communicated and it should be a reasoned order and it should assign reasons as to why the case of the petitioner is not considered.
The Commissioner Income Tax at Gulburga is directed to pass fresh order and the order should be a reasoned order and the reasons to be assigned as to the rejection of the objections. - Consequently, the assessment order issued by the office at Belgaum is quashed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 834
Addition u/s 68 - creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions - Held that:- it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer but not of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Admittedly, the so-called creditors were not before the Assessing Officer nor any affidavit or any document was collected from those persons. Therefore, the creditworthiness of those persons is not established. This condition is one of the element of proof and this proof has to be produced and established by the assessee at the first instance. - . By merely filing bank account details of the alleged creditors, it is not enough to hold that the assessee has satisfied the above ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 833
Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) on the ground that the activities of the appellant could not be said to be genuine after the amendment of the definition of 'charitable purpose'? - Cricket Association - Held that:- he trust falls under the head of "any other object of general public utility" and hence falls within the meaning of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Act.
The anxiety of the Parliament in introducing the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is only to check those institution, which attempt to gain exemption under the cloak of a trust.
Revenue granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act satisfying itself as to the objects of the association befitting the status as charitable purpose as defined under Section 2(15), as it stood in 2003 and after granting the registration, if the registration is to be cancelled, it must be only on the grounds stated under Section 12AA(3) of the Act with reference to the objects accepted and registered under Section 12AA, as per the law then stood under the definition of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's view that it is an entertainment and hence offended Section 2(15) of the Act does not appear to be correct and the same is based on its own impression on free ticket, payment of entertainment tax and presence of cheer group and given the irrelevant consideration. These considerations are not germane in considering the question as to whether the activities are genuine or carried on in accordance with the objects of the Association. We can only say that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rested its decision on consideration which are not relevant for considering the test specified under Section 12AA(3) to impose commercial character to the activity of the Association. In the circumstances, we agree with the assessee that the Revenue has not made out any ground to cancel the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 832
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses and depreciation on guest House was allowable and the provisions of Section 37 (4) of the Act, were not attracted? - Held that:- this issue is covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another [2005 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME Court], in which it was held that maintenance expenses not allowable in respect of Guest House.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law holding that deduction u/s 80-I was allowable on gross total income without reducing the deduction u/s 80-HH of the Act? - Held that:- Decided against the revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 831
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS - payments have been artificially broken up to avoid the TDS provisions - composite contract - Held that:- it is not clear that which portion of the payment was made for infrastructural facilities. But, whatever may be the position, the payment has been made and the tax could have been deducted at source. In view of the fact finding of the learned Tribunal, we are unable to admit the appeal, as the learned Tribunal has correctly held that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source from the payment made to M/s. Ushakiran Movies Limited and therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was justified. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 830
Deduction u/s 80IC - prohibited category of business - principle of res-judicata - Held that:- This is the ninth year of relief being claimed by the assessee. In all the earlier eight years, relief has been allowed on identical facts and the same has not been disturbed. In view of the above, respectfully following the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court [2013 (6) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court [2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT], we are of the opinion that on the principle of consistency, learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80IC of the Act
-
2013 (12) TMI 829
Validity of Assessment u/s 153C - assessment u/s 153C passed in the individual name of the appellant - warrant of authorization to search was issued in the joint names of several persons. - Held that:- CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, who treated the agricultural income shown by the assessee in the original return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act prior to the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act particularly when neither any document or incriminating evidence was found during the course of search to substantiate that the assessee earned any income from other sources. Therefore, the income already accepted as an agricultural income in the original return of income furnished u/s 139(1) of the Act, cannot be disturbed in the assessment framed u/s 153C read with Section 153A/143(3) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 828
Disallowances of the rent of guest house - CIT(A) deleted 50% of the disallowance and 50% confirmed on the ground that guest house was located inside a farm house, its use by the Directors for personal purpose cannot be denied.- Held that:- if the CIT(A) was of the opinion that matter needed proper enquiry or even a survey he should have got the same done. Without getting the same done, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the part of the disallowance. Assessing Officer has also not examined the watchman who was produced by the assessee for examination. In our considered opinion, the matter has not been properly enquired into. - matter remanded back.
Deemed dividend - Held that:- it is undisputed that assessee was not a share holder in the payor company and M/s Sonia & Co. and hence no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. It has been expounded that addition u/s.2(22)(e) can be made only if the assessee is a registered shareholder of the payor company - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 827
Undisclosed income - Held that:- The assessee is maintaining its books of accounts on cash system of accounting - The entire fees are shown as income as and when they are received - The assessee might have claimed the credit of TDS without taking income into consideration for want of receipts of the income - The assessee is directed to once again file reconciliation statement showing unreconciled receipts as income of the subsequent years, in which the payment has been received by the assessee - The assessee is also directed to show that the TDS amount claimed by the assessee has been shown as its income during the year under consideration - The issue is restored for fresh adjudication.
Credit of TDS - Held that:- The assessee has not received the TDS certificate in physical form - He has claimed the credit only on the basis of Form 26AS - The issue is restored for fresh adjudication.
Interest income understated - Held that:- The addition has been made on the basis of AIR information disregarding the facts of interest shown in the books of account - The issue is restored for fresh adjudication.
Remuneration to partners - Held that:- The capital gains has not been considered for the purpose of computing the remuneration to partners in the computation of income - Interest on FDR, the assessee has been showing interest on fixed deposits as its business income since past years and no disturbance has been made by the AO - The same treatment has been followed - The AO is directed to verify whether the assessee has excluded the capital gains while computing the remuneration paid to the partners or not - The issue is restored for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 826
Purchase of agricultural land - Held that:- It was an established fact that the situation of the land was more than 08 kms. away from the municipal limits of Jodhpur - As per the provisions contained in section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, the present land being agricultural land situated beyond 08 kms. of the municipal limits was not a capital asset - The profit earned by the assessee on the sale of the said land was not a capital gain - The assessee' intention was to keep the land available for cultivation - Decided against Revenue.
Interest income - Held that:- The assessee purchased FDR amounting for 12 months - The period of 12 months from the date of purchase of the FDR was going to be expired on 31/10/2009 - Maturity date was not falling within the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration - The Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition on the basis of notional income accrued to the assessee - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 825
Rejection of appeals - Held that:- The ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in dismissing the appeals filed by assessee for more than one reasons - He did not provide reasonable opportunity to the Assessee of being heard - The order passed u/s. 263 cannot come into the way of ld. CIT(A) to dispose the appeal filed by assessee against impugned assessment orders as these proceedings are independent proceedings - If proceedings u/s. 263 are held to be invalid then the impugned assessment orders will stand and matter would be required to be adjudicated on merits - The ground on which ld. CIT has invoked section 263 is entirely different from the grounds raised in the impugned appeals - The ground on which section 263 is invoked is relating to non-initiation of concealment penalty which is not subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 824
Deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- In earlier years - The assessee had not opted to claim the deduction because of loss - AO found that it had adjusted the loss derived from the 10A unit against the other income - Following The Commissioner of Income Tax10 Versus M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. [2012 (3) TMI 101 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - There is no provision in Section 10B by which a prohibition has been introduced by the Legislature in setting off of a loss which is sustained from one source falling under the head of profits and gains of business against income from any other source under the same head - AO/FAA did not have the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court - The issue is restored for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 785
Nature of amount received representing as 'Capital Replenishment Reserve' by way of surplus free sale of sugar quota under the Scheme known as 'Sugar Incentive Scheme', which is inseparable part of trading receipts - Capital Receipt or revenue receipt - Held that:- the amount was utilized for expansion of the unit. So the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of this amount, which has already been granted by the Tribunal - following Ponni Sugars & Chemicals LTD. & ORS. [2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT], decided in favor of assessee.
Disallowance of amount transferred to molasses reserve fund - Held that:- This issue is squarely covered as per the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of the Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, ITR No.4 of 1985 dated 20.9.2005 [2005 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where the expenditure is incurred while the business is being carried on and not for its extension or for the substantial replacement of its equipment, is a revenue expenditure and should have been allowed as an admissible deduction and accordingly answered the question in favour of the assessee.
Valuation of closing stock on account of interest - in the valuation of closing stock the assessee has added to the cost the amount of bank interest i.e. after deduction of the interest receipt from the gross amount of the interest payable. But the A.O. opined that the gross interest payable should be included in the cost of valuation of closing stock so he has disallowed the claim made by the assessee but the appellate authorities have allowed the claim of the assessee. - Held that:- it is not evident whether the closing stock was pledged in the bank, what interest was paid on receipt viz a viz Fixed Deposits Receipts. Hence the facts are not clear. - matter remanded back to AO for fresh decision - Decided partly in favor of revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 784
Unexplained investment in property - reference to valuation officer - Held that:- the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without the books of account being rejected. - Following the decision in Sargam Cinema vs. CIT; [2009 (10) TMI 569 - Supreme Court of India], decided in favor of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
