|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 7553 Records
-
2014 (12) TMI 1210 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB - part allowance of deduction u/s 80HHC - Held that:- We have heard the arguments from either side and have gone through the order of the Hon SC giving clear cut direction to the assessee “to demonstrate the process undertaken by the assessee to convert raw diamonds in a superior commodity”.
In the light of the above, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to adjudicate and pass fresh order of assessment and adjudicate on the claims as made by the assessee on merits and as an law.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1209 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant stay - Held that:- The assessee has succeeded before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Mere admission of substantial question of law does not mean that we should stay the impugned order or the consequential effect. If the Revenue succeeds in the appeal, consequences will flow and necessary orders will be passed. There are several issues, which arise for consideration, including the question, whether the photocopies of the balance sheets etc. recovered can be treated as sufficient documents for initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The other question, which arises for consideration, is whether any satisfaction is required to be recorded before proceedings are initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Question of limitation is also raised. Application dismissed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1205 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 153A - Held that:- We held that u/s 153A additions in the case of completed assessments can only be made if so the additions are based upon incriminating documents. Since additions were not based upon incriminating documents, therefore, additions were not validly made. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of assessee
-
2014 (12) TMI 1204 - ITAT MUMBAI
Transfer pricing adjustment - transaction of issue of equity shares - Held that:- The capital receipts received by the assessee on issue of equity shares to its holding company cannot be considered income. Ajustment made by the AO on account of ‘share premium’ and ‘interest charged on account of under charged premium amount cannot be endorsed. We also hold that TP provisions are not applicable to such transaction. See Vodafone India Services Private Limited case [2014 (10) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1203 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of the issue of notice under s. 153C - Held that:- Considering the totality of the above facts and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) we hold that the issue of notice under s. 153C in the name of M/s Image Credit & Portfolio (P) Ltd. on 10th Sept., 2010 is void. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Once the notice issued under s. 153C has been quashed the assessment completed in pursuance to such notice also cannot survive and the same is also quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained purchase - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the survey action was conducted on a third party. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had business relation with Moxdiam Group, like so many other parties. It is also a fact that there is not even a iota of evidence with the AO, to prove that the assessee did not have straight dealings with the Moxdiam Group. It is also a fact that, that the assessee entered each of its transaction in its primary books, comprising of ledger and stock register. From the order of the AO, the DR could not establish before us that the transaction as recorded in the books was sham. We cannot accept a bald statement made by the AO that any transaction/business done with a party would be sham, simply because the opposite party besides doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries. Simply on the basis of statement given by the third party, that they were also providing accommodation entries as well, the conduct of the assessee cannot be doubted and held to be sham.
The assessee had conducted business, this is proved by various books of account produced before the AO which were original and primary books and not even the after thought of the assessee, which has been acknowledged by the AO.In such a circumstance, we cannot sustain the addition as made by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1201 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition on account of AIR information - Held that:- It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative. It is the case of the assessee that it had received only ₹ 1,00,000/- from Allied Digital Services Ltd. However, as per the AIR information, the assessee had received ₹ 4,49,440/- from the said party. There is no reference of amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- in the AIR information, rather, the detail of amount has been given as ₹ 3,00,000/- on 02.01.08 and ₹ 1.49 lakh on 24.03.08. The issue be restored to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in this respect. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Disallowance on account of partner’s conveyance allowance - Held that:- A.R. has submitted that in fact the amount in question was not the conveyance allowance rather the same was reimbursement of the actual expenses incurred by the partners in the ordinary course of business. It has been further submitted that the firm owns one car only and hence the outside conveyance as and when required was used by the partners. The expenses were very reasonable. Thus we restore this issue to the file of the AO to examine it afresh in the light of the submissions made by the Ld. A.R. and the evidences in the shape of vouchers etc. in this regard.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Disallowance on account of depreciation of car and telephone expenses - Held that:- From the record, it has been found that the lower authorities have disallowed only 1/5th of the amount. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the same is a quite reasonable disallowance. Hence, we confirm the finding of the lower authorities on this issue.- Decided against assessee
-
2014 (12) TMI 1200 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds on interest expense - Held that:- A.R, has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the India Bulls has filed return of income u/s. 139(1), had offered the amounts received from Assessee as its income and has paid the tax on such income. Further, we find that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agarwal (2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA ) was not available before A,O. and CIT(A). We therefore feel that the issue where the Assessee has not deducted TDS but payee has paid the taxes needs to be re-examined by the A.O in the light of the aforesaid decision of Agra Tribunal and we therefore set aside the issue to the file of A.O for him to decide the issue in the light of decision of Agra Tribunal and in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1199 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital gain - interpretation of Sec. 45 - revaluation of the assets of the assessee firm and subsequent conversion of the firm into Limited Company under Chapter IX of the Companies Act - whether no transfer involved when the assessee gets itself registered under Para IX of the Companies Act, 1957 ? - Held that:- The same question came up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. United Fish Nets [2014 (10) TMI 574 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein held that the distribution must result in some tangible act of the physical transfer of properties or the intangible act of conferring exclusive rights vis.a.vis an item of property on the erstwhile shareholder. Unless these or other legal correlatives take place, it cannot be inferred that there was any distribution of assets. In the instant case, the shares of the respective shareholders in the respondent-company were defined under the partnership deed. The only change that has taken place on the respondent being transformed into a company was that the shares of the partners were reflected in the form of share certificates. Beyond that, there was no physical distribution of assets in the form of dividing them into parts, or allocation of the same to the respective partners or even distributing the monetary value thereof following the decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Texspin Engineering And Manufacturing Works [2003 (3) TMI 56 - BOMBAY High Court] . Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts of the case in holding that the assessee is not liable to any capital gain tax either u/s. 45(1) or 45(4) of the IT Act - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (12) TMI 1198 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - disallowance of sundry expenses - Held that:- From the perusal of the reasons recorded it can be seen that the AO is noting the facts from the accounts of the assessee that amount debited under the head sundry expenses on account of intangible assets interest charges return off for HVDC project. He held such an expenditure has to be treated as capital expenditure. Such a reasons definitely amount to “change of opinion” as the final account was very much available and examined by the AO at the time of the passing of the original assessment proceedings. It has a tribe law that u/s 147 and the assessing officer has no power to review completed assessment merely on the ground that its difference of opinion can be formed. Without there being any tangible material such a completed assessment cannot be reopened. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has categorically held that merely on the “change of opinion”, the assessment completed cannot be reopened thus the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) has noted above has based on settled legal proposition and accordingly the same is confirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1196 - ITAT DELHI
Profits and gains on purchase and sale of shares - assessed under the head ‘capital gains’ or ‘profits and gains of business’ - Held that:- we have to necessarily hold that the gains derived from the purchase and sale of shares by the assessee is rightly offered to tax under the head capital gains and not business income. The facts show that out of the total short term capital gain of ₹ 1,75,51,496/- the undisputed fact is that an amount of ₹ 1,39,41,555/- was earned on shares which were held by the assessee for more than 30 days. In fact short term capital gain of ₹ 83,56,196/- was earned on shares which were held for more than 4 months. Similarly the assessee earned capital gains of more than ₹ 40 lakhs for shares which were held for more than 5 months.
This is not a characteristic of a trader. There are no borrowed funds. The assessee has always classified the purchases as investments in its books of accounts. In the earlier year the assessee has disclosed capital gains and the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) accepted the same. On this factual matrix we agree with the contentions of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the gains in question cannot be assessed under the head income from business.’ We hold that the entire profits from the purchase and sale of shares have to be assessed under the head ‘capital gains’. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- t the entire or whole expenditure has been disallowed as if there was no expenditure incurred by the respondent assessee for conducting business. The CIT(A) has positively held that the business was set up and had commenced. The said finding is accepted. The respondent-assessee, therefore, had to incur expenditure for the business in the form of investment in shares of cement companies and to further expand and consolidate their business. Expenditure had to be also incurred to protect the investment made. The genuineness of the said expenditure and the fact that it was incurred for business activities was not doubted by the AO and has also not been doubted by the CIT(A). Thus we set aside this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law as the facts are not clearly coming out in the assessment order as to whether the assessee has earned tax free income during the year - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1195 - ITAT DELHI
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparabels - Held that:- Infosys is not a suitable comparable to the case of the present assessee i.e. Pyramid India because there is a vast difference between functional profile of Infosys and the assessee company. We also note that the assessee is only providing contract software development services and IT staffing services and, on the other hand, Infosys being a high turnover giant company having a different functional profile, along with huge expenses on advertising and marketing and having substantial intangible assets, cannot be held to be a suitable comparable for the assessee company which is only having turnover of ₹ 7.24 crore from the contract software development services segment.
KALS Information Systems is not a suitable comparable as this company was developing software products and was not merely, purely or mainly a software provider company.
Avani Cincom Technologies earns revenue from sale of software products and software services and in absence of segmental details and data, AvaniCincom Technologies cannot be considered as comparable to the assessee company who was providing contract software development services only.
Persistent Systems Ltd. in absence of segmental details/information about segregated income from both the segments, the company cannot be taken into account for comparability analysis and, therefore, Persistent Systems Ltd. ought to have been omitted from the final set of comparable.
Quintegra Solutions Ltd. ought to have been omitted from the final set of comparables for the year under consideration as undisputedly, present assessee company is primarily engaged in provision of contract software development services (CSD segment) and IT staffing services
Tata Elxsi (Seg) not fit for comparability analysis for determining the ALP of the assessee having turnover of more than ₹ 200 crore and more than 50 times of the assessee’s turnover, also owns several intellectual property rights and intangible assets worth 11.86 crores which are 12% of its total net fixed assets.
Lucid Software is not a suitable comparable for the purpose of determination of ALP of the impugned transaction of the present assessee and this entity deserves to be deleted from the final set of comparables as Lucid Software has developed a software product named “Muulam” and for this purpose, the company has employed heavy capital in development of a specific product, then profitability in the sale of product would be certainly high in comparison to the company which is only involved in the service sector.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1194 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment u/s 153A - penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- if the name of the assessee against whom the block assessment has been made, does not figure in the warrant of authorization issued u/s.132, the block assessment would be unauthorized, void ab-initio. If the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction, then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s.158BFA(2). Accordingly, the Tribunal had held that penalty cannot be sustained once the block assessment is held to be void ab-initio. Since in the instant case the assessee has taken a specific ground before the Ld.CIT(A) that as there was no warrant of authorization in the name of the assessee, the 153A proceedings are bad in law and since the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated on this issue, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the ground of appeal raised. He shall also give a finding as to whether any warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee or not.
Since we are restoring the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) on this preliminary issue, we refrain ourselves from adjudicating the appeal on merit.- Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1193 - ITAT MUMBAI
Non granting of interest u/s 244A on the self assessment tax paid - maintainability of proceedings u/s 154 - Held that:- The issue of interest on self assessment cannot be raised in proceedings u/s 154, cannot be accepted, because it was only after giving effect to the Ld.CIT(A) order and while granting refund, the AO has not granted the interest on self assessment tax. The only course left before the assessee was to file a petition u/s 154. Thus the claim of interest of self assessment tax is maintainable in the proceedings u/s 154. So far as the issue, whether interest should be granted on the amount of self assessment tax paid is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Stock Holdings Corporation of India (2014 (11) TMI 899 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), wherein held that tax paid on self assessment would fall within the ambit of section 244A(i)(b). Accordingly the AO is directed to grant interest u/s 244A on the self assessment tax. - Decided in favour of assessee
Working of interest u/s 244A while granting refund to the assessee - Held that:- The assessing officer should examine the working of refund and interest afresh, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CIT (2013 (9) TMI 451 - DELHI HIGH COURT). The assessee can submit its own working, which can be examined by the AO in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as their Lordships after examining the relevant provision of section 244A and effect of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HEG [2009 (12) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT] have laid down the principle as to how the part payment of refund and the interest on the balance amount is to be calculated - Decided in favour of assessee partly for statistical purpose.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1192 - ITAT MUMBAI
Long term capital asset - CIT(A) held that the assessee has been holding the 2000 shares of his employer company M/s I Flex Solutions Ltd as “Legal Owner” for more than one year and hence, it was long term capital asset” - Held that:- found from the record that the assessee has got these shares under a scheme of ESOP wherein the assessee received 250 shares in April 2000 (before the issue of the bonus in October 2000 and September 2003 and split of the shares in two of ₹ 5/- each). However, no basis has been given by the AO for holding that the shares were purchased on 18.12.2006. However, ld. CIT(A) has recorded, finding to the effect that the shares were allotted to the assessee under ESOP scheme in the year 2000 and thereafter bonus shares were issued and there was a split of shares which resulted in total number of shares at 2000, accordingly treated the same as long term capital assets. At no point of time, the ld. DR controverted the finding of CIT(A), by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) for allowing the assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains. See Muthuswamy Ravikumar V/s ACIT [2008 (3) TMI 407 - ITAT BANGALORE-A] wherein held it is the date of grant of the stock option in favour of the assessee that is material for determining the period of holding the asset in question, and not the date on which the option was exercised and stock options were converted into shares. capital gains arising out of the sale of shares acquired through ESOPs have to be assessed as long-term capital gains with consequential benefits of indexation and exemption under s. 54 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1191 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Disallowance of interest as interest free advances were given to its sister concerns - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- , the assessee admittedly had its own funds, as referred to earlier, and admittedly such funds/reserves being substantially higher than, even otherwise, the advances to the debtors, no notional interest or hypothetical interest could have been disallowed on such facts. The revenue has failed to prove nexus. In our view, the ITAT has correctly appreciated the facts and law in deleting the notional interest, disallowed by the AO and accordingly the appeal is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1189 - ITAT KOLKATA
Validity of revision orders u/s 263 - Held that:- Clearly, ld. CIT has not mentioned anything about the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Further, even the submissions of the assessee have not been rejected nor rebutted. In these ci rcumstances, we are of the view that the order passed under section 263 is unsustainable and consequently quash the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1188 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Initiation of proceedings under Section 153-C - ITAT setting aside the initiation on the ground that no written satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing Officer of the persons searched - Held that:- We note that the present case relates to the period prior to the amendment made to Section 153-C by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect from 1st October, 2014.
Filing of printed paper book is dispensed with. However, liberty is granted to the parties to file documents/papers which were filed before the authorities/Tribunal as per the Delhi High Court Rules. To be shown in the Regular List (Part-A) in the week commencing 23rd March, 2015.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1187 - ITAT MUMBAI
Short term capital gain v/s business income - Held that:- The assessee is an investor who has been assessed as investor since A.Y 2000- 01 onwards. We, therefore do not find any reason to deviate from the rule of consistency. We, therefore, do not find any reason in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) to treat the assessee as an investor where the holding period was less than 7 days. We, accordingly set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to treat the entire Short Term Capital Gains as such. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1185 - ITAT CHENNAI
Additional depreciation on windmill - Held that:- The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) has held that where the assessee has set up windmill in addition to some other existing business, and is engaged in the generation of electricity, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation on the same. - Decided in favour of assessee
............
|
