|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 9151 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1119
Bogus long term capital gains in shares - whether long term capital gains could be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- The action u/s 68 of the Act has been taken merely on the basis of the statement of the third party. We find that the assessees have duly proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the broker from whom the sale proceeds of shares were received by the assesses and hence the resultant long term capital gains thereon cannot be doubted with. Hence there is no scope for making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus we have no hesitation in directing the Learned AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- We find that though the provisions of Section 14A of the Act which provides for disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of earning an income which do not form part of the total income is brought in the statute book by the Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1962, the computation of disallowance is provided in Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Rule 8D of the Rules came into effect from 24.3.2008. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing case reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) had held that provisions of Rule 8D could be made applicable only from Asst Year 2008-09. The assessment year under appeal for all the assesses before us is Asst Year 2005-06 and hence the Learned AO erred in invoking Rule 8D of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1118
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) - income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A / 153C - Held that:- The assessee has cumulatively satisfied all the conditions stipulated in Clause 2 of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)( c) of the Act and hence entitled for immunity from levy of penalty for all the assessment years under appeal.
The assessee had made voluntary disclosure during the course of search assessment proceedings after filing the return u/s 153A of the Act but before any detection by the department and the same is considered only as a revision of the disclosure made u/s 132(4) followed by filing of returns u/s 153A of the Act. The expression ‘to be furnished’ mentioned in Clause 2 of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) has to be construed as ‘required to be furnished u/s 153A of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1117
Loss on account of non-speculation transaction as speculation - Held that:- The trading of derivatives for the entire assessment 2006-07 is out of the definition of speculation business if it is carried out in the recognized stock exchange. The assessee has done the trading in the recognized stock exchange. So it is clear that loss on account of derivative transaction or very much covered in clause (d) of the proviso Section 43(5) of the Act. In view of such amendment under the Act, the income/loss arrived on derivative shall be treated as non-speculative loss. - Decided against revenue.
Allowing relief of interest payment relying loss on trading of derivatives prior to 25.01.2006 as non-speculation business - Held that:- AO disallowed the interest paid by assessee up-to 25.01.2006 on the ground that it pertains to speculation business. Therefore, it should not be allowed. However, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of interest expense by treating the loss from the derivative transactions as non- speculative business. We find that this ground relates to the first ground of Revenue’s appeal regarding treating the transaction of derivative as speculative business up to 25.01.2006. In the first ground of appeal, we have held the business of the assessee as nonspeculative. Accordingly, the interest disallowed by AO is allowable expense against the non-speculative business of the assessee. In our considered view, this ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.- Decided against revenue.
Disallowance u/s. 14A - Held that:- There was no applicability of Rule 8D in the instant case as this Rule 8D came in force w.e.f. 24.03.2008. In view of above, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and this ground raised by Revenue is dismissed.- Decided against revenue.
Allowance for the expense of Security Transaction Tax (STT for short) - Held that:- STT was duly shown under the head ‘current asset’ in Schedule-7 for an amount of ₹ 1,38,26,870/-. Ld. AR further drew our attention on page 7 of the financial statement, wherein ‘transaction, Demat & share transfer stamp charges’ under the head of “Administrative charges” were written. Hence the ld. AR claimed that no expense for STT has been debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that assessee has not debited any amount of STT in its profit and loss account in the year under consideration but AO misunderstood from the financial statement submitted by assessee, where transaction/demat and share transfer stamp charges were debited. Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and this ground raised by Revenue is dismissed.- Decided against revenue.
Rebate u/s 88E of the STT paid while working out the tax under the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) as specified u/s 115JB - Held that:- Rebate u/s 88E of the Act was to be allowed from the tax computed as per provisions of Sec.115JB of the Act to find out whether after set off of rebate u/s.88E of the Act, any tax liability remained or not. Admittedly, the tax liability as per MAT provisions was less and rebate admissible u/s.88E of the Act was more. Therefore, rebate u/s 88E had to be allowed even when total income is computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. Resultantly, the ground taken by Revenue is dismissed.- Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1116
Disallowance of accumulated deficit - assessee failed to furnish the year-wise accumulation of deposit and no return was filed before A.Y. 2002-03 - CIT(A) delted the addition - Held that:- It is a fact that the Assessee did not file return of income before AY 2002-03. It is not the case of the Assessee that the accumulated deficit was determined in assessments completed after AY 2002-03 when from the Assessee started filing return of income. The accumulated deficit is claimed on the basis of Balance Sheet as on 31.3.1996 in which loans and advances received in cash or kind is shown at ₹ 9,29,50,000/-. As to what is the opening balance as on 1.4.1995 is also not found in this Balance Sheet. The accumulated deficit as per this balance sheet is shown at ₹ 8,63,10,133/-. The accumulated deficit is thereafter carried forward from AY 96-97 to AY 2004-05 and stands reduced to ₹ 8,54,16,519 as on 31.3.2005 which is sought to be set off against the income of AY 2005-06. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid claim was not made in the return of income filed by the Assessee nor in the proceedings before the AO. The claim was made for the first time before CIT(A). The CIT(A)’s findings on this aspect have already been given in the earlier part of this order. The evidence referred to in the findings of CIT(A) are relevant only with regard to the claim of the Assessee that ₹ 4,54,11,300/- was repayment of loans which had been taken by the Assessee in the earlier AYs and used for charitable purpose and repaid during the PY. There is no material on record to substantiate the claim of the Assessee that a sum of ₹ 8,54,26,519/- was accumulated deficit. Admittedly such accumulated deficit has not been determined in any assessment proceedings and therefore the claim of the Assessee in this regard was wrongly allowed by the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee
Genuity of Repayments of loans - Held that:- The loans were stated to be availed between the year 1980 to June, 2003 when the Assessee did not have funds to carry out charitable activities. In the year in which the loans were availed, there was no scrutiny assessment. In fact the Assessee has started filing returns of income only after AY 2002-03. Therefore the factum of borrowing and the utilization of the funds borrowed were never subjected to scrutiny in the past. There is no evidence filed by the Assessee in this regard. The CIT(A) has referred to the following evidence in upholding the claim of the Assessee viz., (a) details of expenses along with evidence; (b) Loan confirmation; (c) balance sheet for last eight years; (d) Bank statements; ( e) list of repayment of loan, (f) write-up on purpose for acquiring loans. As already stated the Assessee has clearly admitted before the CIT(A) on its inability to produce evidence to prove borrowing and that the loans borrowed were spent for charitable activities and nature of those charitable activities. The mere assertion of the Assessee in this regard without evidence cannot be the basis to uphold the claim of the Assessee in this regard. We therefore do not agree with the conclusions of the CIT(A) in this regard. We therefore reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO in this regard.- Decided against assessee
Disallowance of charity and donation and administrative expenses - neither books of accounts nor the bills & vouchers were produced - Held that:- AO did not allow the claim of the Assessee for the reason that only a list of payments had been filed which was neither supported by any bills and vouchers nor any books of accounts sowing the actual expenditure. The bills and vouchers had been filed before the AO. A specific ground had been raised by the Assessee before CIT(A) in this regard. The CIT(A) has also held that the bills and vouchers evidencing expenses were filed before the AO. The details of charity and donations and the supporting vouchers are at page 75 to 91 of Assessee’s paper book. The details of administrative expenses are placed at page-92 of the paper book and the payments in question were made by cheques. The expenditure in question is reasonable and deserves to be accepted. We are of the view that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1115
Validity of assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- No satisfaction has been recorded in the case of searched person and the satisfaction, if any, recorded in the case of other person will not cure the defect because it is necessary that the satisfaction must be recorded by the AO of the searched person and thereafter the documents are to be handed over to the AO of other person and this position will not alter even if the AO for the searched person and the other person i.e. the assessee is the same. Thus we quash the assessment framed by the AO. As the assessment itself is quashed, no findings have been given on other issues raised by the assessee on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1114
Penalty on account of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c ) - income offered after the search but in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act - Held that:- The CIT(A) rightly held that it is not relevant whether any return of income was filed by the assessee prior to the date of search and whether any income was undisclosed in that return of income. In view of specific provision of Section 153A of the I.T.Act, the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the I.T.A Act is to be considered as return filed under section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A, if any.
Further, in the present case, it appears from the record that the assesses had satisfied all the conditions which are required for claiming immunity from payment of penalty under section 271(1)(c )of the Act. The provsion does not specify any time limit during which the aforesaid amount i.e the amount of penalty with interest has to be paid. Admittedly when the assessee herein have paid the entire amount with interest, the Assessing Officer ought to have granted them immunity available under Section 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act.
For the foregoing reaons, the present appeals stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) is restored. The question of law involved in this appeals is answered in favour of the assesee and against the revenue. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1113
Reopening of assessment - Whether DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 147 of the Act? - Held that:- Revenue has not disputed the finding of CIT(A) that assessee had informed change in registered office from New Delhi to Bangalore on 20/10/2005. It is also not disputed that assessments for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were done by ACIT, Circle 11(4), Bangalore on 6/12/2007 and 29/9/2008 prior to the impugned assessment done by the DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi on 5/12/2008 for assessment year 2003-04. It was also pointed out before AO at New Delhi that its registered office having been shifted, jurisdiction over it vests with the Bangalore income-tax office. Ld.AO, if he was not in agreement with the assessee, ought to have made a determination of the issue of jurisdiction, when assessee had questioned it, in the manner laid down in section 124(4) of the Act, which apparently was not done. This being the factual position, we are of the opinion that DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction on 5/12/2008 to pass reassessment on assessee. We uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1112
Revision u/s 263 - determination of book profits u/s.115JB - Held that:- We are of the view that in the order u/s. 263 of the Act the issue that was considered was the question of reserve u/s.115VT of the Act. It had nothing to do with the determination of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. The directions in the order u/s. 263 of the Act had the effect of obliterating the order of the AO dated 26.12.2007 only to the extent of determination of book profits u/s.115JB of the Act and not the entire order dated 26.12.2007. In other words the order dated 26.12.2007 remained intact in respect of all other matters not considered either in the appeal before CIT(A) or in the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. Those aspects which remained intact were capable of being rectified provided the other conditions for exercise of power u/s.154 of the Act are satisfied. We find that the CIT(A) has not expressed any opinion on the other question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case jurisdiction u/s.154 of the Act could have been exercised. We are of the view that the conclusion of the CIT(A) in the impugned order that the order of assessment dated 26.12.2007 was set aside in entirety in the order u/s.263 of the Act is not correct and accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The other issues with regard to the other objections raised by the assessee with regard to exercise of power u/s.154 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case, are remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, as the CIT(A) has not considered those aspects in the impugned order. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1082
Additions under section 68 - ITAT deleted the addition - whether the impugned additions have been made under section 153A /143(3) of the Act without reference to any material found as a result of search? - Held that:- It was for the fact- finding authorities to finally examine the evidence on record and determine whether the Assessee could satisfactorily explain the credit entry in its books and could establish the genuineness of the transactions claimed to have been entered into by it. Clearly, the ITAT has not examined the facts relating to the Assessee. The ITAT had simply proceeded on the basis of the facts obtaining in the case of Pranjul Overseas (P) Ltd. on the statement of the parties that the facts of that case were similar to the facts in the case of the Assessee. However, an examination of the documents filed before us, it does not appear that the facts in the case of Pranjul Overseas (P) Ltd. were similar to that as obtaining in the present case. While it appears that in the case of Pranjul Overseas (P) Ltd., the Assessee disputed that any search took place at its registered office, the written submissions filed by the Assessee in this case, does not indicate that any such dispute was raised. Even before us it has not been contended that no search took place at the declared registered office of the Assessee.
In the circumstances, we find it is necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal to examine the facts relevant to the Assessee for determining whether an addition under Section 68A of the Act was sustainable. Needless to mention that it would also be open for the ITAT to remand the matter for further enquiries if it is so considered necessary.
It is not open for the Assessee to challenge the validity of the search under Section 132 of the Act or the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act, as those issues had not been pressed by the Assessee before the ITAT - Decided in favour of the Revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1081
Assessment u/s 153C - assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 153C - Held that:- Admittedly, the Assessee was not one of the entities that was subjected to search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act. The assessments were also framed under Section 153C of the Act; although the assessments order reflect that the assessments were framed under Section 143(3)/153A(b) of the Act, the orders passed by the CIT(A) indicates the same to be a typographical error. Section 153C of the Act provides for assessment/reassessment in cases where assets/documents have been found during the search and seizure operations and the same do not belong to the searched person(s).
It is seen that the facts and the issues involved are similar in all material aspects to the facts and issues involved in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 06 v. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Thus, for the reasons stated in therein we find no infirmity with the view of the ITAT that the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were without jurisdiction. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the other issues sought to be raised by the Revenue. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1080
Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - period of limitation - Held that:- The period of limitation prescribed under Section 275 of the Act is apparently clear, namely, that the order of penalty must be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the appellate order is received. The said order of the Tribunal was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.06.1999. Six months would expire on 31.12.1999. The period of limitation cannot be extended merely because an application under Section 254 of the Act was filed by the assessee. The Department cannot take advantage of the filing of the application by the assessee. There was no embargo upon the Assessing Officer in not completing the penalty proceedings within the period of limitation. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Department in the cases of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1995 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court) and Henri Isidore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1997 (10) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court] have no application in the present case.
Consequently we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal and deleting the order of penalty holding it as barred by limitation. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The question of law, as referred, is answered in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1079
Reopening of assessment - uncounted share application money received - change of opinion - Held that:- The questionnaire and, particularly, question No. 3, specifically raised the issue with regard to the shares. The responses were given by the assessee from time to time and what is more important is that the Assessing Officer had directly issued letters to all the share applicants, who had, in turn, given their confirmations along with their PAN numbers and bank details. After having received the said information, the Assessing Officer did not think it fit to make an addition and that itself would amount to forming an opinion, as indicated in CIT v. Usha International Limited (2012 (9) TMI 767 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) and Lahmeyer Holding GMBH (2015 (5) TMI 654 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). Therefore, the present exercise of issuing the notice under Section 148 of the said Act would be nothing but one of change of opinion, which is impermissible.
As decided in Swarovski India Limited v. Deputy CIT: [2014 (9) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] wherein a notice under Section 148 of the said Act was quashed for being issued after the expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year, wherein there was no specific mention of which material facts were not disclosed by the assessee in the course of its original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the said Act. In the present case also there is not even a whisper of the allegation that there has been a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1078
Commission payments made to nonresident sales agents - disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - Held that:- There was no occasion to deduct tax at source in respect of the payment made to the nonresident agent. The income of nonresident commission agent cannot be considered as income arising or accruing in India. Therefore, the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) would have no application for the two Assessment Years under consideration. Not only the entire issue stands concluded in favour of the Respondent-Assessee in the present facts by the CBDT Circular Nos. 23 of 2969 and 786 of 2000 which were in force during the subject Assessment Years but also by the decision of the Apex Court in Toshoku Ltd. (1980 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ) in favour of the Respondent-Assessee. - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of interest - availability of sufficient free funds - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- It is undisputed that the Respondent-Assessee has interest free funds aggregating to ₹ 16.09 Crore. The advances and interest made to group companies by the Respondent-Assessee is to the tune of ₹ 26.55 lakhs. The amounts borrowed in the aggregate being to the extent of ₹ 6.81 lakhs i.e. both working capital and term loans. Thus, as held by this Court in CIT v/s. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] that where both interest bearing funds and interest fee funds are available then a presumption would arise that investments to sister companies would be out of its interest free funds - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1077
Existence of partnership firm - AOP - PAN issued - Held that:- The insistence of the Department, however, on the firm filing return since the PAN was issued on the name of the firm does not appear to be valid. Even according to the Department, no such partnership firm existed. Merely because PAN was issued by the Department erroneously, there cannot be any insistence that return should be filed in the same capacity. Erroneous description in the PAN would not change the reality that no such partnership firm ever existed. However, with respect to the members of the AOP and the grievance of not being able to get credit of the tax deducted at source, we are afraid, the same cannot be resolved at this distant point of time. We are referring to the years 2005 and onwards till the fresh PAN was issued in favour of the AOP in the year 2011. Assessments would have been over or time-barred.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1076
Transfer pricing adjustment - Tribunal restricting the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs.) - Held that:- in terms of Chapter X of the Act, redetermination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from International Transactions on determination of ALP. The adjustment which is mandated is only in respect of International Transaction and not transactions entered into by assessee with independent unrelated third parties. This is particularly so as there is no issue of avoidance of tax requiring adjustment in the valuation in respect of transactions entered into with independent third parties. The adjustment as proposed by the Revenue if allowed would result in increasing the profit in respect of transactions entered into with nonAE. This adjustment is beyond the scope and ambit of Chapter X of the Act. - Decided in favour of assesee
Appeal admitted on Question Nos.(b)Disallowance of payment of royalty, project engineering and manufacturing drawing fees - ITAT allowed the claim
and (c)Disallowance of payment of liquidated damages - ITAT allowed the claim
-
2015 (12) TMI 1075
Entitlement for claim for exemption under section 54F - whether the same amount of sale consideration had not been utilized towards the purchase of property prior to the date of sale as per the said provisions? - whether the assessee in order to avail benefit of Section 54F of the Act is required to utilize the amount for the purchase of the new asset from the sale proceeds of the original capital asset only? - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- he assessee has to purchase or construct a house property during the period specified under Section 54F of the Act in order to get benefit thereunder. Section 54F of the Act nowhere envisages that the sale consideration obtained by the assessee from the original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for the purchase or construction of a house property. No provision has been made by the statute that in order to avail benefit of Section 54F of the Act, the assessee has to utilize the amount received by him on sale of original capital asset for the purposes of meeting the cost of the new asset. Once that is so, the assessee was entitled for benefit under section 54F of the Act.
It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had made investment in between February 2008 upto August 2008 i.e. well within the stipulated period. The property was purchased for ₹ 3.32 crores whereas the shares which were sold had resulted in capital gain of ₹ 1.93 crores. The investment was more than the capital gain earned by him.
In the present case, the investment made by the assessee being within the stipulated time and more than the capital gain earned by him, the addition of ₹ 1,21,32,636/- was rightly deleted by the Tribunal under the head long term capital gain. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to point out any error in the approach adopted by the Tribunal reversing the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, warranting interference by this Court. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1074
Penalties under section 271D - violation of Sections 269SS - ITAT deleted penalty - Held that:- The amount received by the assessee towards share application money would not fall under loan or deposit under section 269SS of the Act. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D of the Act was not leviable. The Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1073
Photo copy of the receipt taken for the purpose of assessment - 'chargeability of income' - Whether the 'hypothetical income' can be brought to charge under section 5 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dehors the provisions of section 2(c) read with section 10 (Indian Contract Act, 1872), Section 5 (Transfer of Property Act, 1882), Section 17 (The Registration Act, 1908) and the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899? - Held that:- The photocopy of the receipt is specific in that it evidence receipt of ₹ 55 lakhs is cash from Shri Joginder Singh and Mrs. Harjinder Kaur, being the purchasers, on 15.9.2000. It is duly signed by all the assessees in token of having received the aforesaid sum of money in cash. The name of the purchasers as also the date of receipt of the aforesaid sum of money are also mentioned in the receipt in unambiguous terms. The fact that the receipt carries signature of the recipient of the aforesaid money on the revenue stamp affixed on the receipt further establishes the genuineness of the contents of the receipt. If the AO had the original of the receipt in his possession and shown the same to the assessees, the assessees could have done no better than what they have done by seeing the photo copy of the receipt. Besides, the receipt is relevant to the fact in issue and establishes in unambiguous terms the receipt of ₹ 55 lakhs in cash over the apparent consideration. Secondly, the authenticity of the receipt, the authenticity of the signatures of the assessees on the receipt, and the fact that a sum of ₹ 55 lakhs was actually received by them in cash have been confirmed by the assessees in their respective statements recorded on oath by the ADIT (Inv.). In other words, the genuineness of the receipt and also the contents thereof are duly corroborated by all the assessees in their respective statements. It is not a case where the departmental authorities are acting merely on the basis of photo copy of the receipt. Thirdly, and more importantly, the assessees have not placed any evidence on record to rebut the contents of the receipt or even the contents of their statements. In this factual setting, we are unable to hold that the said receipt is irrelevant material for the purpose of making assessment. We therefore hold that the Assessing Officer has rightly acted upon the contents of the receipts which are duly corroborated by the assessees in their respective statements, for making the assessment under challenge before us - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1072
Disallowance of business loss claimed u/s 41(1) - damaged stock of paddy - disallowance based on auditors note/ certificate - Held that:- The matter is required to be remanded keeping in view the facts urged by the assessee that certain amount out of the damaged stock of paddy of ₹ 5.08 crores was received by the assessee in the financial year 1997-98 relating to the assessment years 1998-99 onwards upto assessment year 2003-04 and that the amount so received was taxed in the year of receipt - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1071
Eligibility for exemption u/s 11 denied - CIT(A) held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) - ITAT allowed assessee appeal holding that the institution/society run by the assessee had received substantial Government aid for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) - Held that:- In the present case, there has been financing by the Government when examined on individual institution basis to be ranging from 41% to 82% whereas when the percentage is taken for the society as a whole then it comes to 44.52% and 45.15% for the two years. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence correctly held that the Government was substantially financing and interested in the management of the respondent-assessee and, therefore, were eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court in Indian Institute of Management's case (2010 (8) TMI 890 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) held where there was financing of 37.85% by the Government held the assessee to be entitled to eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) - Decided against revenue.
............
|
9911796707
