|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 9151 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1526
Addition on unexplained share capital - discharge of onus laid down under section 68 - Held that:- During the course of search, no incriminating documents were found. Therefore, no notice can be issued U/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act because no proceeding was pending before the Assessing Officer, which has abated for issue of notice on the date of initiation of search. Thus, on technical ground, the assessee’s appeal succeeds and order passed U/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act is held void ab initio.
On facts also, the assessee has produced before the Assessing Officer copy of share application, confirmation of the cash creditors, copy of PAN, copy of Board resolution, copy of Director’s report, auditor’s report, copy of balance sheet, copy of P&L account, copy of bank account in all the cases to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors. The ld Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of investigation conducted by the ITO, Investigation Wing, Kolkata but the ld Assessing Officer of the assessee has not clarified what inquiry had been conducted and what evidences collected which goes against the assessee. The notice U/s 131 issued by the ITO, Investigation Wing, Kolkata were served in case of Vidya Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Shivarpan Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd., but compliance could not be made on the given date because concerned officer was on leave. In case of Middleton Goods Pvt. Ltd. and Lactrodryer Marketing Pvt. Ltd., notices were served on the assessee and in compliance to the notice, the party submitted all the documents in the IT office - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1525
Sale of shares - business income or short-term capital gain - Held that:- All the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order as discussed above, which have remained un-rebutted or uncontroverted by the ld. D.R., are considered in the light of the relevant CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 as well as the judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee and relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order, we find ourselves in agreement with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the relevant shares were purchased and held by the assessee as investment and, therefore, the profit arising from the transactions of purchase and sale thereof is liable to tax in the hands of the assessee as short-term capital gain and not business income. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1524
Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) - Held that:- The show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed.
See case of CIT Vs. MWP Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 1214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] wherein held that mere mention of "Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)( c) initiated separately" in assessment order, does not amount to a direction under Section 271(1)( (c) for levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1523
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- Although the ITAT may have erred in holding that the issuance of notice under Section 153A (1) (a) of the Act was invalid, it is not in dispute that qua the Respondent Assessee no incriminating material was found during the search so as to justify the addition made in the assessment order passed pursuant to the issuance of such notice. As held in several decisions including Kabul Chawla (2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), no assessment can be framed in terms of the Section 153A of the Act in the absence of the any incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the net result is that the assessment order will in any event have to remain quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1522
Addition being 1% of the total wages and salary - Held that:- We find that the assessee had offered the additional income on account of discrepancy in record in respect of certain payments made to certain parties on account of wages and labour charges. The AO has also made the disallowance finding discrepancies in the salary register. Hence, in our view, telescopic benefit is required to be given to the assessee in respect of the income offered on this account. Since the assessee has already declared additional income of ₹ 5,67,047/- in this respect, hence, in our view, no further disallowance of ₹ 1,79,732/- was warranted in this case. In view of the above, addition made on this issue is hereby ordered to be deleted.
Interest under section 234B - Held that:- We find that as per sub section (3) of section 234 of the Act as it stood and applicable for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee is liable to pay the interest, for the period commencing on the day following the date of determination of total income under sub section (1) of section 143 or under section 143(3) as the case may be and ending on the date of reassessment or re-computation under section 147 or section 153A. On the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of the reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble Karnataka Bombay High Court in “Vijay Kumar Saboo, HUF & Others. Vs. ACIT” (2011 (7) TMI 135 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) has also analyzed the above provision and has held that where in a case, the income is determined consequence to the filing of the return under section 143(1) or 143(3) and the income is increased in consequence of the reassessment proceedings, either under section 147 or under section 153A of the Act, the interest will be leviable as per the provisions of sub section (3) of section 234B of the Act. In view of the above, the AO is directed to calculate and compute the interest accordingly.
Addition u/s 68 on unexplained bank deposits - Held that:- The assessee has explained the source of entire deposits of more than ₹ 7 lakhs, we do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities in disbelieving the source of above deposits of meager amount of ₹ 18,200/-. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1521
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) denied - Held that:- The assessee before us had furnished complete details with regard to the computation of income in his hands and also the details with regard to the computation of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in Form No.10CCB, which was filed along with return of income. Though the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to the assessee, but because of judicial propositions on the issue of allowability of the said deduction, we find that the assessee had prima facie bonafide claim vis-à-vis the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. In such circumstances, where the assessee had furnished complete details and the claim of the assessee was a bonafide claim, merely because the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to the assessee, does not merit the levy of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we find merit in the reliance placed upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ). - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1520
Disallowance vls 40(a)(ia) - amount payable or paid by the end of the year - Held that:- Supreme Court in Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1131 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] has approved the special bench judgment in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd.[2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ] in which it was held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts 'payable' as of 31st March and not to amounts already 'paid' during the year. Since the said matter has now reached finality, it is held that the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) would apply only to amounts which are "payable" as on 31st of March 2006.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1519
TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - payments for production of programmes for broadcasting and telecasting and payments for uplinking charges - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prasar Bharati (2006 (11) TMI 159 - DELHI High Court ) holding that placement charges/ carriage fees is covered under the definition of work contracts and therefore tax was to be deducted at source on such payments under section 194C, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1518
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) we hold that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 30.12.2009 for A.Y. 2007-08 for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand is invalid and consequently, the penalty proceedings are also invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1517
Disallowance of deduction u/s u/s.80IA(4) in the asst. framed u/s.153A - Held that:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the preceding assessment following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. and other [2010 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and various other decisions allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. However, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we find no disallowance has been made u/s.80IA(4) in the assessment order passed u/s.153A of the Act. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature.- Decided in favour of assessee
Addition made u/s.69B on account of difference in valuation in the asst. framed u/s.153A - Held that:- In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or in 153A proceeding which would show that non-addition u/s.69B was erroneous, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s.69B of the Act we find no infirmity in the same.- Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation on windmill and MEDA charges - Held that:- The AO has accepted the rate of depreciation as claimed by the assessee and MEDA charges was allowed as business expenditure. No incriminating material whatsoever was found during the course of search or 153A proceedings. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd./ Continental Warehousing Corporation (2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) has held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed by making additions which is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search or during 153A proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition on the basis of loose papers found during the course of search - Held that:- A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has not carried out any verification in support his contention that notings conclusively prove that the entries in the loose papers are infact speed money/bribe paid to various persons whose names are mentioned against each figure. On a pointed query raised by the Bench during the course of hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative also candidly admitted that no such exercise has been done either by the Investigation Wing after the search or by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, it is not correct to hold that the payments noted on the seized papers indicate speed money/bribe paid by the assessee company to various persons. However, considering the presumption laid down in section 132(4A) of the I.T. Act, since these papers are found with the assessee company, therefore, the AO is justified in holding that the assessee company has paid the amount noted on the seized papers and the CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition - Decided against assessee
Addition u/s.41(1) - Held that:- CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO u/s.41(1) of the I.T. Act as the liabilities do not cease to exists merely by efflux of time. - Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation claim - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing higher depreciation @80% on civil work foundation and related labour cost of windmill. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition of expenses made by cheque - Held that:- We find the finding given by the Ld.CIT(A) that the seized documents reveal payment of ₹ 1.5 crores in cheque prior to 14-04-2007 by B.T. Patil and the share of the assessee in the said amount is ₹ 75 lakhs for which the assessee is entitled to a relief of ₹ 75 lakhs on account of payable of expenses made by the cheque is not based on any cogent evidence and proper appreciation of facts. On a pointed query by the Bench during the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was also unable to clarify as to how this deduction/relief was justified on the basis of notings only on the loose paper. In view of the above, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue is set aside - Decided against assessee
Unaccounted expenditure incurred by the assessee on the basis of paper seized from the residence of Shri. D A Bhat - Held that:- Admittedly, the papers containing certain expenditure with dates mentioned therein are not considered by the assessee while working out the unaccounted income. During the hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was also not in a position to clarify the basis of deletion made by the CIT(A) and justify such deletion. In view of the above we reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the ground raised by the revenue is allowed. - Decided against assessee
Addition on account of undervaluation of WIP - Held that:- The assessment had not been completed for the A.Y. 2009-10 when the search took place and the same was pending. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee was unable to explain the non consideration of work-in-progress in the final accounts. In view of the above and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A) while confirming the addition on account of undervaluation of work-in-progress we find no infirmity in the same.- Decided against assessee
Levy of interest u/s.234A - Held that:- A non-obstante clause has been inserted and with a defined intent. In our opinion, once the search takes place on a person and the due date for filing of the return u/s.139(1) has not expired he can file the return only after the issue of notice u/s.153A. He is not required to file the return u/s.139(1). Therefore, the authorities below are not justified in levying interest u/s.234A of the I.T. Act for a period from 31-10-2009 to 20-07-2010 - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1515
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) AO did not verified the issues with regard to claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act at the time of completion the assessment - Held that:- Ee are of the opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous insofar as it is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT assumed his jurisdiction to revise the assessment order on the issues, which are considered by the A.O. in the assessment order. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT under sec. 263 of the Act is not maintainable; accordingly, we quashed the CIT’s order and restore the assessment order as CIT cannot assume the jurisdiction on the same issue, which is already considered by the Assessing Officer on the guise of revision by stating that the Assessing Officer has conducted inadequate enquiry or there is a lack of enquiry - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1513
Transfer pricing adjustment - ALP adjustment - appropriateness of adopting CUP method as against the TNMM for determination of the ALP - Held that:- As the present appeals are concerned, the Court finds the impugned order of the ITAT to be well reasoned and researched to hold that the assessee’s contention to the effect that the arm’s length price of services rendered to, or received from, the associated enterprises, which was computed on the basis of the same 50:50 model as is the industry norm and as has been employed by the assessee for computing similar services to the independent enterprises, was at arm’s length. Accordingly, the impugned arm’s length price adjustment stands deleted.
The legal principles governing the determination of ALP in a TP adjustment exercise have been expounded lucidly by the ITAT in the impugned orders. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1512
Reopening of assessment - assessee sold his immovable property and had earned long term capital gain claiming deduction under section 54-EC on investment in Rural Electrification Corporation - Held that:- The reasons recorded by the assessing officer do not even suggest that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The revenue has not, even if possible to do so, demonstrated any such failure on the part of the assessee. In fact, counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that not only that all such declarations were in the returns filed, during the assessment also this issue had come up for consideration. The petitioner in communication dated 03.09.2010 had pointed out to the assessing officer the investments made with the Rural Electrification Corporation and in purchase of immovable property.
Thus, quite apart from the reasons recorded by the assessing officer not indicating any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, even the record suggests to the contrary. Reopening quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1511
MAT computation - Working of tax liability on book profit u/s.115JB - receipt of dividend income - Reopening of assessment - Held that:- In the computation of income presented by the petitioner along with the return of income, the petitioner had shown book profit as per Section 115JB of the Act of ₹ 4,23,47,912/-. This figure is significant and would appear in our later observations as well. In the profit and loss account, the petitioner showed dividend income of ₹ 15,458/- as income from other sources and showed profit before tax of ₹ 4,23,47,912/-. For computation of book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB, the petitioner adopted such amount of ₹ 4,23,47,912/- as shown in the profit and loss account. There were no additions and deductions to be made as referred to in Section 115JB and therefore, the final figure of book profit for the said provision came to the said original amount of ₹ 4,23,47,912/-.
Thus for all purposes whether for the computation of income for normal tax provisions or as per the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, the said amount of ₹ 15,458/- was duly reflected and was accounted for. The Assessing Officer formed wrong belief that for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, the said amount of ₹ 15,458/- disappeared from the consideration.Under the circumstances, notice of reopening being bad in law, is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1510
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Merely because the assessing officer has made additions in a particular manner would not mean that the Commissioner would be confined to scrutiny of the methodology adopted by the assessing officer and to proceed either to confirm or to delete the additions, if such methodology is not found entirely satisfactory. Even without the aid of these wide powers, the appellate authority would have inherent power to uphold the additions on correct application of law and facts if sustainable even if on the reasoning of the assessing officer is not found correct. In other words, the appellate authority is not bound by the reasoning of the assessing officer and can through different route reach the same conclusion.
Under the circumstances, we do not think that the powers under section 263 of the Act can be exercised when, though addition has been made, on the footing of the premises which are not to the satisfaction of the Commissioner and, therefore, to make additions on better premises with better reasoning or on different application of legal principles.In the result, in our opinion, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. When the question is the very foundation of the notice and jurisdiction of the Commissioner to exercise such powers, the question of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy or to permit the Commissioner to complete the proceedings and thereafter to direct the petitioner to take appeal route does not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1509
Maintainability of appeal under Section 260A - whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the reference application filed by the department, though as per rule 45 of Appellate Tribunal Rule 1962, the tribunal may send the statement to the High Court without annexures? - Held that:- The impugned order has not been passed in appeal by the Tribunal but consequent to the order of this Court dated 2nd February, 1999 allowing the Revenue's application under Section 256(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed consequent to the order dated 2nd February, 1999 of this Court in advisory jurisdiction. The impugned order of the Tribunal is not in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction for it to be an order amenable to appeal under Section 260A of the Act.
The order passed by the Tribunal consequent to the order passed under Section 256(2) of the Act is not an order passed in Appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. An application under Section 256(2) of the Act and the order passed by this Court thereunder are in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction. Therefore, any grievance of the parties in respect of the Tribunal, not complying with the order of this Court for whatever reason could not be remedied by an Appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Thus Appeal as filed from the impugned order is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1508
Admission made in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) - disclosure of income to be examined in the course of the proceedings under Section 245D(4) - procedure adopted by the Settlement Commission - Held that:- The point of maintainability of the application could be raised as a contention by the Department before the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission would be entitled to examine that question at the final hearing.
On the other hand, if this court were to issue rule and to admit the case to file and take it up for final hearing several years down the line, it would cause prejudice to the Department. Therefore, since the Settlement Commission would be in a position to decide the application along with the point as regards the maintainability in the first instance, there is no prejudice caused to the Department. Since it is also an admitted fact that the respondent has paid the entire tax on a sum exceeding ₹ 300 crore, there is absolutely no prejudice caused to the Department. The petitions are misconceived.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1507
Tribunal power under the Act to extend the stay of demand in the appeals pending before it beyond the period of 365 days - Held that:- This Court has consistently taken a view that the Tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to subsection 2A to Section 254 of the Act was introduced. This is evident from all the orders referred to in para 3 hereinabove. The Revenue has not filed appeal against the above orders of this Court in the context of the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. Nothing has been shown to us as to why when the Revenue has accepted the above orders, a different stand is taken in this appeal.
Apex Court in CCE vs. Kumar Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., (2005 (1) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) held that notwithstanding the presubstituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act the Tribunal continues to have powers to grant interim relief.
In the above view, therefore, the ratio of the decision in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (2007 (7) TMI 5 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY ) would apply even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act.
The only substantial difference in the presubstituted third proviso and substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act is the addition of the words “even if delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” These additional words added in the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act has been struck down by the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015 (5) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT). - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1506
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - Held that:- In the present case there was a change of opinion and no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the Assessee. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the assessor's counsel that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Pipe Co [1999 (7) TMI 57 - DELHI High Court] wherein that the Tribunal had found that the assessee had furnished confirmations from the cash creditors and it was only when the Assessing Officer wanted him to produce these creditors, including Y in whose case summons sent under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were received back unserved, that the assessee found it expedient to surrender the amounts, but merely because the assessee had surrendered the amounts it did not follow that the amount agreed to the added represented its concealed income. The surrender so made also stood accepted and the Revenue had brought no material on record, besides the factum of the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty
Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, however, it is a case of change of opinion. Under these circumstances, in our view the penalty in dispute is totally unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, we delete the penalty in dispute made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and cancel the orders of the authorities below on the issue in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1505
Deduction u/s 35ABB (2) - Held that:- In view of prohibition to transfer the original license, we reject the claim of the assessee for deduction of the whole sum paid under Phase-I of the license u/s 35ABB (2) of the Act and confirm the order of CIT(A) on this count.
Deduction u/s 35ABB (1) - Held that:- Assessee has exercised option to migrate to Phase-II and not to continue under phase-I policy. As per chart submitted by the assessee showing difference between the Phase-I and Phase II, there are change in the payments terms which has become from fixed payment regime to revenue sharing regime, in the conditions pertaining to shareholding, conditions for appointment of directors, hiring of broadcasting equipment's etc. As we have already held that migration of license of assessee from phase-I to phase-II is just modification of terms and conditions of the license and these modification cannot be said that old license granted to assessee in phase-I has ceased or not in force. Therefore we are unable to persuade ourselves that the terms of licence granted in Phase-I has come to an end. In our view terms and conditions of license has been modified in above manner and tenure of the same is also extended and license granted in Phase-II is not independent of license granted to assessee in Phase-I. Therefore the claim of the assessee for deduction of above sum u/s 35ABB (1) is also not correct.
Whether the amount of unallowed capital expenses paid by the assessee under phase-I policy is a capital loss or whether such a sum is allowable to the assessee? - Held that:- The reason given by CIT(A) for allowing the deduction of fees paid by assessee under PHASE-I over the remaining life of the license granted under PHASE-II of the regime. We do not find any infirmity in the finding as well as reasoning given by CIT(A) as in substances the reason canvassed by CIT(A) are similar to what we have propounded in our order. In view of this we confirm the order of CIT(A) in granting deduction of ? 1,26,58,244/- being 1/10th of ? 12,65,82,440/- being fees paid by assessee in Phase-I as deductible expenditure u/s 35ABB(1) during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 - Decided against assessee.
Depreciation u/s 32(i) (ii) on the amount of license fees - Held that:- We are of the view that provision of section 35ABB(8) which provides that Where a deduction for any previous year under sub-section (1) is claimed and allowed in respect of any expenditure referred to in that sub-section, no deduction shall be allowed under sub-section (1) of section 32 for the same previous year or any subsequent previous year. Further as held by is in deciding the issue of allowability of claim of the assessee u/s 35ABB (1) wherein we have allowed the claim of the assessee on proportionate basis from remaining years of license, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted - Decided against assessee.
Interest income - assessed as business income OR income from other sources - Held that:- Before CIT(A) the details of such interest income was not furnished by AR of the assessee and same was no such details have been furnished before us. In the assessment order also, AO has not mentioned the reason for changing the head of bank interest income from "Business Income "offered by assessee to 'income from other sources'. Therefore in the interest of justice we set aside this ground of appeal of the assessee back to the file of AO to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Direction by CIT(A) to verify the record and allow carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation/ business loss as per law - Held that:- Assessee submitted before CIT(A) that it has only carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation of previous years of ? 9796408/- and ? 12521695/- of unabsorbed Business loss as per assessment order for AY 2004-05. Against this CIT(A) has granted a direction to AO verify the record and allow carry forward of unabsorbed business loss and depreciation in accordance with the law. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A) - Decided against revenue
............
|
9911796707
