| Case Laws |
|
Home  Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2013 2013 This
|
|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 6519 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 643
Valuation of rights Held that:- Following ACIT vs. Shri Abhijit Rajan [2013 (12) TMI 234 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity by the CIT(A) before admitting the additional evidence - The issue was restored for fresh decision.
-
2013 (12) TMI 642
Whether annual value can be determined u/s 23(1)(a) even when the actual rent received is higher Held that:- The actual rent received by the assessee can be an indicator as to what the landlord might reasonably except from the hypothetical tenant and so long as the rent received by the assessee is more than the municipal rateable value it is not proper to estimate reasonable rent by taking into consideration the notional interest on the interest free deposit Following assessees own case for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2006-07 The CIT(A) was right in deleting addition on the basis of notional interest The annual value cannot be determined by invoking provisions of Section 23(1)(a) Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 641
Addition on account of unexplained cash credits Held that:- The person from whom amount was received admitted to have only one concern Deepak Corporation Whereas Ruchita Enterprise and Antima Corporation were operated by him for and on behalf of the assessee alone Observation of bank accounts presented by the assessee shows that the person has given false statement The assessee should be given chance for cross examining the person The issue set aside for fresh decision.
Disallowance of bad debts written off Held that:- Following CIT v. Shreyas S.Morakhia [2012 (3) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The brokerage having been credited to the profit and loss account of the assessee, it is evident that a part of the debt is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee - Since both form a component part of the debt, the requirements of Section 36(2)(i) are fulfilled where a part thereof is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee - The deduction should be allowed only to the extent of the debts as reduced by the value of shares in the hands of the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee.
Deduction on account of repairs and maintenance charges of computers Held that:- the amount paid is capital in nature The depreciation at the rate of 30% is allowed on the amount - The remaining amount will be allowed as depreciation in later years Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 640
Computation of undisclosed income During search and seizure operation The assessee has not disclosed one bank account Held that:- The Autosweep investments has been made from the said bank account The same amount has been credited back to this account The addition should be on the basis of one transaction The deduction of opening balance of bank account shall be allowed Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 639
Rejection of application for registration u/s 12AA The assessee is a public charitable trust having objects Providing of medical relief to poor; to provide food free of cost to poor people and to carry on such philanthropic activities for the benefit of the downtrodden Held that:- The charity should come after some reasonable time The concept of gestation period for any institution to start functioning, is applicable to a charitable institution as well - . The assessee trust is in infancy - The objectives declared by the assessee in its trust deed are charitable in nature Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 638
Disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) The assessee borrowed Rs. 2.45 crores for working capital requirements The assessee has invested Rs. 1.53 crores in share application money and Rs. 1 crore in shares in its sister concern - Held that:-The assessee produced before CIT(A) the additional evidences which were not produced before AO - The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance without giving an opportunity of being heard to the AO - The issue set aside for fresh adjudication.
-
2013 (12) TMI 637
Whether the expenses incurred on repair and maintenance of roads inside premises are capital or revenue Corporation has got 1700 godowns which are connected with the roads for transporting food grains - Held that:- The godown roads are maintained every year for smooth movement of food grains - The expenditure incurred on such repair and maintenance of approach roads of godowns has not resulted in creation of any capital asset - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 636
Validity of proceedings u/s 154 Held that:- The assessee did not appear before AO for assessment proceedings The AO did not consider the tax deposited by the assessee The assessee produced the challans and other material on record for verification by authorities for the first time before Tribunal The same was not produced before AO The issue restored for fresh examination.
-
2013 (12) TMI 635
Validity of service of notice u/s 143(2) The return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.10.2001 The notice was served on 31.10.2002 on Shri Devang Shah, Chartered Accountant, who has audited the accounts of the assessee-firm Held that:- Following Shubham Enterprises Vs. ITO [2003 (8) TMI 461 - ITAT ALLAHABAD] - The AO has not claimed that Shri Devang Shah, CA was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was executed by the assessee firm in favour of the said Chartered Accountant The notice was not served validly within the stipulated time Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 634
Addition u/s 68 The assessees bank account has been credited with Rs. 44,24,500 and later on this amount was transferred to the account of directors - Held that:- Following decision in assessees own case for the A.Y. 2007-08 The assessee was merely an employee - The amount was deposited in his bank account by the directors or family members of the business concern The amount was transferred to the bank account of the directors of the family concern - The assessee was merely a benamidhar of the bank account in his name - The money deposited belonged to the directors or family members of the business concern The real owners of the money were directors or the family members of the business concern - The facts and circumstances are identical with the facts of the assessee for the earlier A.Y.2007-2008 - The issue is restored to the file of the AO to verify the entries in the bank account of assessee with the bank accounts of S/Shri Chimanlal Jamnadas Sheth and Ketan Sheth or any other family members of the directors of the business concern.
-
2013 (12) TMI 633
Adhoc disallowance of Rs.75,000/- out of conveyance expenses, staff welfare expenses, sundry expenses and traveling expenses Held that:- Certain expenses were not supported by third party vouchers The disallowance was restricted to the amount for which the assessee failed to substantiate with the vouchers Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of 10% of freight expenses and other expenses The assessee issued Debit notes to its principal companies for Rs.5.36 crore towards service charges and commission income to the tune of Rs.3.07 crore and reimbursement of expenses worth Rs.2.29 crore - Held that:- If any expenditure is recorded in the books of account, there cannot be any reason to invoke the provisions of section 69C.
Notional income out of reimbursement - The CIT(A) is of the view that the assessee must have saved 20% out of such reimbursement - It is for the principal companies to verify the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee on their behalf and then make reimbursement of the same The authority tried to step into the shoes of the principals for verifying the correctness of the claim lodged by the assessee towards reimbursement of expenses - When the principal companies have reimbursed the expenditure to the tune of Rs.2.29 crore there cannot be any presumption that the assessee must have saved some money out of the same Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 632
Deduction u/s 80lB(10) . A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted -The assessee has constructed houses which exceeded the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft of built up area The assessee has failed to comply with the condition precedent u/s 80IB i.e. the built up area of each unit should not exceed 1500 sq.ft and, accordingly, disallowed the claim of the assessee Held that:- the AO has rejected the claim based on Physical verification and report of Govt. approved valuer and Statement of the Director u/s 132[4] - The AO based his finding on the statements of the site engineer and one of the resident of 'J' Block without affording any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses - The AO and the CIT(A) both have violated the principles of natural justice - The AO should get the physical verification of the flats at J and K Block of the project through the DVO .It is also suggested that the each and every occupant of the flats should be contacted to verify whether any addition/alteration was done by them or the built up area is same as it was purchased originally, this can also be verified from the municipal authorities who have fixed municipal taxes for each unit separately - Decided against Revenue and the appeal was restored back for denovo assessment.
-
2013 (12) TMI 631
Disallowance of writing off of deposits with debtors The deposits relate to the business which has been closed down and sold off - These are generally deposits with statutory authorities - Others are in relation to other than Government authorities also - Held that:- Following G.R.Pandya Share Broking Ltd. vs. ITO [2008 (9) TMI 612 - ITAT MUMBAI] If the amounts receivable from the Government authorities are taxable as income then such amounts not receivable shall be allowed as deduction The matter set aside for fresh decision.
Sundry interest receivable from Directors of the assessee company The loan as well as interest on such loan has been written off by the company - Held that:- Since the loan and interest was receivable from the Directors of the assessee-company itself, therefore, in my considered view written-off the same as bad debt was not justified at the end of the assessee-company. The Director or the Person who manages the affairs of the assessee-company, how the Directors can take a view that the loan paid by them along with interest has become bad? - The amount written-off by the Directors of the assessee-company was just to avoid the taxability which has arisen on account of interest and rental income Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 630
Re-opening of assessment u/s 147 The assessee has carried forward long term capital loss on sale of shares which were subjected to STT - Held that:- The AO was justified in reopening the case on account of wrongly allowing carry forward of long term capital losses on account of transaction with STT which are exempted under section 10(38) Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 614
Deductions u/s 80HHD - Held that:- Following assessee's own case [2009 (10) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] for earlier assessment year 1990-91 - The room tariff should also be taken into consideration for granting deduction under section 80HHD of the Income tax Act - The room tariff comes within the expression, 'services provided to foreign tourists' - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 613
Stay for recovery of demand and removal of provisional attachment u/s 281B - Held that:- The tax demand or issues are inchoate and it may take a considerable time before the issue is finally settled - The dispute may be taken to the Supreme Court for final adjudication and this is a time consuming process - The final outcome is uncertain and not free from doubt. Even if the matter is decided against Nokia India/Nokia Finland, the quantum of demand itself in respect of deduction under Section 40(a)(i), interest and penalty including penalty under Section 271C/271(1)(c) of the Act would depend upon several factors which may take their own time to decide.
In view of the closing down or keeping out Nokia India, when Nokia Finland is globally transferring and disposing of their hand devices/mobile phones business, the attachment of assets may not be the sound and considered decision or even in the interest of the Revenue as there could be sharp decline in the market value of the assets of Nokia India.
The interim order dated 26th September, 2013, in particular clause (1) and (3) is passed to allow sale of assets by Nokia India to Microsoft/Microsoft International subject to fulfilment of certain conditions - Nokia Finland, will receive about Rs.31,000 crores pursuant to the global transfer of hand devices/mobile phones from the Microsoft International - It will continue to exist and operate, even after handset/mobile phone business is sold to Microsoft International as it being a listed company having several businesses and business interests.
Nokia Finland, in addition to the undertaking or letter of guarantee already quoted, will file another letter in form of guarantee/undertaking incorporating the terms and conditions and file the said letter/undertaking with the income tax authorities - It will pay the tax dues dues of the company sold out to the extent permissible and recoverable under the provisions of the Act - Partly allowed in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 612
Validity of reassessment u/s 147 - Held that:- The provisions of section 142A of the Act was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from 14th November, 1972 - The original assessment order passed on 14.1.1991 that is much before 28.11.2003 - It had become final between the parties on the date when section 142A was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 - Following CIT vs. Gulam Mohammad [2009 (8) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - The proviso to section 142A states that the provisions shall not apply where the assessment has become final before the applicability of this section - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 611
Interest on excess levy price - Held that:- Following Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills etc. Dhampur [2004 (8) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD High Court] - The interest payable for the assessment years in question accrued during the previous year relevant to the assessment in question as provided under the provisions of the Levy Sugar Price Equalization Fund Act, 1976 - There was statutory liability of payment of interest every year - Decided in favour of assessee.
Liability towards the additional cane price - Held that:- Following Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Dhampur [2005 (4) TMI 548 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - No disallownace can be made on this ground - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 610
Taxability of claim for damages - Held that:- When the assessee is maintaining the books of account on the basis of actual receipts then damage amount can be brought to tax as and when it will be received after finalization in the appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court - Following Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] - In view of insertion of section 45(5) of the Act - When the assessee-claimant is in receipt of enhanced compensation it shall be treated as "deemed income" and taxed on receipt basis - The year in which enhanced compensation is received is the year of taxability - Even in cases where pending appeal, the court/tribunal/authority before which the appeal is pending, permits the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute), the same is liable to be taxed under Section 45(5) of the Act in the year of receipt - No amount has been received till date by the Assessee pertaining to the damages as claimed by the assessee - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 609
Intimation of accumulation of income - Held that:- The application under Section 11 (2) was not filed with the return by the assessee - The information was given during the process of the assessment, before the assessment was completed - There was sufficient material before the Assessing Officer both in the shape of the information furnished within the prescribed period and the proof of not only setting apart 85% of the amount to be spent in next year but also the expenditure of that amount in the next year - The insistence of furnishing of information on Form 10 as a condition precedent, is insistence on the form and not the substance of the provisions of the Act - The Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter back to examine the books of account of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 to find out whether the amount was spent in the next year and if the investment exceeds unspent amount within the prescribed period, the Assessing Officer will condone the delay and irregularity in filing Form 10 - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
| |
9911796707
