|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 6519 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 663
Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) Held that:- The Assessing Officer has wrongly treated the assessee as contractor in respect of buses taken on hire by the assessee - All the owners of the buses from whom the assessee has hired them on monthly rent have confirmed the balance of the assessee through confirmations / affidavits - They have confirmed that their buses have been given on monthly rent to the assessee - The Assessing Officer has not examined any of them and none of them have ever stated that the assessee is a contractor and they have given their buses to him - Section 194C is not applicable in the case of the assessee in respect of hire charges paid to the owners of the buses.
Disallowance made u/s 40A(3) Held that:- None of the single payment is made in contravention of section 40A(3) - All such payments are less than Rs. 20,000 Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 662
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) The assessee had received a loan from the company to the extent of Rs.66,05,357 - The company had the reserve and surplus to the extent of Rs.35,63,996 - Held that:- The amount received by the assessee from the company are clear cut in the nature of advances - The assesee was a beneficial owner as well as share holder holding more than 10% shares in the company - The provision of section 2(22)(e) are clearly applicable in the hands of the assessee Decided against assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A The assessee has taken unsecured loan out of which a sum of Rs.6,21,300/- was given to M/s.Kiran Investments Corporation and the balance amount was deployed in the company from which the assesee derived dividend income - Held that:- The assessee has clearly accepted that money borrowed was utilized for purchase of shares - The assessee earned divedend income which was exempted form tax - The interest has been incurred by the assessee for earning of the dividend income Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 661
Validity of assessment u/s 147 the receipt of Rs.10,05,496/- on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, though added to the capital account but no corresponding income was credited to the P&L A/c - Held that:- As apparent from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer u/s 148(2) it is a clear case of change of opinion - The reasons recorded by the AO are not bona fide Following CIT vs Kelvinator of India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - The concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 - The Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment - The Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion - The Assessing Officer has power to reopen an assessment if he had "tangible materials" to prove income has escaped assessment Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 660
Re-computation of disallowance u/s 14A Held that:- Rule 8D was applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 For earlier years dis-allowance of expenditure had to be determined by adopting some reasonable method having regard to all facts and circumstances Following Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010 (9) TMI 291 - ITAT, MUMBAI] Disallowance of 10% is justified Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 659
Refusal to grant registration u/s. 12AA Exemption u/s 80G - The cataract operations and other supporting activities were done through its sister concern, M/s. Debipur Netralaya Pvt. Ltd - Held that:- M/s. Devipur Netralay Pvt. Ltd did not get any special benefit on account of cataract operation The medical expenses are high to pay Rs. 500/- for per cataract surgery and Rs. 175/- for providing spectacles to the school children and post operative cataract patients - Charitable activity was being done by making use of the facilities of the sister concern - On perusal of the income and expenditure accounts for the various years of the assessee society - The assessee is doing the charitable activities - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 658
Mistake apparent from record Valuation of stock on the date of survey - Held that:- The value of stock as physically found at the time of survey was short by Rs. 14,21,168/- than the value of stock recorded in the books - Some sales have been made outside the books due to which the stock is found lower in value - The action of the AO in estimating the sales outside the books at Rs. 18.00 lakhs, does not seem to be arbitrary or unreasonable on the facts of the case Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 657
Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds Loans and advances were given to sister concerns of the assessee company without charging interest Held that:- Both the assessee and the Revenue have mingled up the facts and circumstances of the case It is not possible to draw the clear conclusions The matter restored to the files of AO for fresh decision.
-
2013 (12) TMI 656
Deduction u/s 80P Held that:- Following the assessees own case for the A.Y. 2004-05 Although the assessee has furnished separate details of trading done with the members of society and with non-member public under the instruction and direction of the Government - A reliable bifurcation of sales activity cannot be made as the sales counter for member as well as non-member was same The assessee produced material for assessment year 2004-05 but there is no such material produced by the assessee during this year before the assessing officer - The appeal is restored for fresh judgement.
-
2013 (12) TMI 655
Calculation of value of stock Addition on account of labour charges - Held that:- When both expense and income elements are included in the manufacturing account the balance in manufacturing account cannot be further reduced The valuation of closing stock comes to Rs.8,33,413 Decided against Revenue.
Addition on account of Bogus & Inflated Transportation Charges Held that:- the assessee submitted a copy of ledger account of Shri A.N.Banerjee in the books of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers showing the balance as on 30.11.2005 and as on 31.3.2006 in respect of transport charges received from the assessee A copy of the ledger account of M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers in the books of the assessee along with the copy of the bills were also filed before the CIT(A) which shows the transport charges to the extent of Rs.20,88,053 If Revenue is of the opinion that expenses are bogus then the onus is on Revnue to prove the fact Decided against Revenue.
Addition on account of Bogus/Ingenuine Sundry Creditors Out of Rs.12,80,618/- only a sum of Rs.3,20,709/- was receivable by M/s. Mahesh Road Carriers from the assessee - Held that:- M/s Mahesh Road Carriers directly received sum of Rs. 9,52,553/- from the client of assessee in Nepal The assessee has not accounted such payment in his books Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 654
Addition on account of liability u/s 41(1) The assessee has outstanding liability towards creditors amounting to Rs.1,66,53,143/- in respect of 28 creditors - Held that:- Following Visnagar Taluka Audyogik Sahakari Mandli Ltd vs CIT [1999 (9) TMI 51 - GUJARAT High Court] If the AO feels that the liability has ceased to exist then onus to prove the fact is on AO The assessee continued to show the liability Section 41(1) is not applicable Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 653
Disallowance of payment being unreasonable and excessive The assessee's name and logo is published in all the 16,85,640 pieces of calendars and no separate charges are collected by Media World enterprises for such advertisement - Held that:- Media World Enterprises, is a publisher and it is not a mere printer - A Hindu calendar requires many inputs, material and specialized knowledge which can be done only by certain persons having the expertise - Paying Rs. 2 in excess per calendar, for getting advertisement in about more than 10,00,000 pieces is justifiable - Media World Enterprises and the assessee company are paying tax at the very same marginal rate - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of professional charges paid for services rendered Assessee paid the sum of Rs. 3.6 lacs as honorarium to Mrs. Ashoo Darda - A member of the event group of the assessee called 'Sakhi Manch' - Held that:- The payment made to the person was for organizing event which helped the assessee in image building among public The similar payments were made by the assessee in earlier years The same were allowed by the Revenue Decided in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of recovery commission paid by the assessee The assessee entered into an agreement with the associate concern, M/s. Media Expert Pvt. Ltd (MEPL) and the recovery commission of Rs. 157.82 lacs @ 9% of amount collected on account of advertisement charges - Held that:- Following J K Woollen Manufacturers vs. CIT [1968 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME Court] - The commission stood paid to MEPL since 1.1.1996 and commission income received by MEPL stood returned and assessed by the Department in the hands of MEPL - MEPL had actually rendered services relating to recovery, marketing, billing, collection of advertisement - The transaction with the associate concern was not merely a paper transaction While applying the test of commercial expediency, for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of assessee's business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of a businessman and not of IT Department - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 652
Deduction claimed u/s 80-IA(4) Held that:- Following CIT vs. Emerald Jewel Industry P. Ltd [2010 (8) TMI 648 - Madras High Court] The assessee-company is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA in respect of the income from Windmill installed by it - The unabsorbed depreciation set off in earlier years cannot be reduced from the profits for computing the deduction u/s 80-IA The issue remitted back for fresh decision.
-
2013 (12) TMI 651
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied on account of low GP rate Held that:- Following CIT Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] Penalty can be levied only when the explanation given by the assessee is false or malafide Following Dilip Shroff [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME Court] The concept of mensrea was an essential requirement for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) In this case different authorities were having different opinions as well as different estimates of probable G.P. rate for this same year Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 650
Whether income from share transaction to be treated as business income or income from capital gains Held that:- The assessee has not purchased, sold and repurchased the same scrips The assessees intention was that of an investor - The assessee has not taken any loan from any person for the purposes of purchasing shares - The assessee has sold shares after substantial capital appreciation Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 649
Addition on account of short term capital gain The assessee has sold only original shares and not the bonus shares - Held that:- In view of amendment bought to section 55 - The computation was made taking into consideration cost of original shares only Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance u/s 14A Held that:- Following Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record The issue set aside for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 648
Disallowance u/s 14A Held that:- Following M/s. CCI Ltd., vs. JCIT [2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] The provisions of section 14A are not made applicable to the case of dividend earned out of the shares held as stock-in-trade - The assessee had not retained the shares with the intention of earning dividend income which was incidental due to his sale of shares which remained unsold by the assessee - The assessee is liable to prove that the exempt income earned by him is out of the stocks held for trading purpose The matter restored to the files of AO.
-
2013 (12) TMI 647
Disallowance u/s 14A Dividend earned on shares held as stock-in-trade - Held that:- Following M/s. CCI Ltd., vs. JCIT [2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - The provisions of section 14A are not applicable to the dividend earned out of the shares held as stock-in-trade - The assessee is not engaged in investment of shares and he is undisputedly into purchase and sale of the shares held as stock in trade - The dividend earned in undisputedly out of the unsold shares Decided in favour of assessee.
Rebate u/s 88E from the tax computed u/s 115JB Held that:- Following CIT & Another vs. M/s. Horizon Capital Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 489 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - While computing the total income u/s 115JB of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the amount equal to the STT paid by him in respect of the taxable securities transactions entered into in the course of business during the previous year Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 646
Shares held for less than 30 days to be treated as investment or trading in shares Held that:- Following CIT Vs Gopal Purohit [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Delivery based transactions should be treated as those in the nature of investment transactions and the profit received therefrom should be treated either as short term or long term capital gain, depending upon the period of the holding - The principle of res judicata is not attracted since each assessment year is separate in itself. - There cannot be any dispute about the basic proposition that entries in the books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 645
Revision of order u/s 263 Whether revision of order on the ground that rebate u/s 88E requires more careful examination is valid or not - Held that:- Following CIT Vs Max India Ltd. [2007 (11) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India] The CIT should have valid reason to exercise his revisionary powers The CIT has no plausible reason to review the case - It is only in cases of lack of inquiry the Commissioner is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling for and examining the records of any proceedings Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 644
Unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- The assessee has reflected the bank statement in his balance sheet as well as return of income - Every cash deposit made in the disputed savings bank account of the assessee was immediately withdrawn for the purpose of purchasing the demand drafts in the name of Indian Oil Corporation Limited - All the demand drafts were purchased in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and they were all purchased for the purpose of running the fuel station - The assessee has explained the nature of these cash deposits found in the savings bank account maintained by the assessee Decided against Revenue.
Unexplained investment in jewellery Held that:- The CIT(A) has granted sufficient relief to the assessee by accepting all the plausible explanations offered by the assessee - The assessee is again bringing some grounds against the confirmation of some quantity of gold jewellery as unaccounted, not on the basis of any evidence, but by way of pleadings Decided against assessee.
............
|
9911796707
