|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 968 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 1998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Unexplained jewellery - Addition of the value of gold jewellery of 250 gms as unexplained - Whether Tribunal was right in not accepting the claim of the assessee regarding purchase of gold jewellery merely because of the absence of purchase bill and denial by the jeweller, when the assessee had proved and the Appellate Tribunal had accepted the source of moneys for purchase of the gold jewellery? - HELD THAT:- The assessee carried the matter by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Madurai. CIT (A) had called for remand report and considered the factual matrix and held that the assessee has established the source of funds for the purchase of gold jewellery to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs. Further, the CIT(A) discredited the statement of one N.S.R. Mohan, gold merchant, who admittedly had transactions with the family members of the assessee and it is his own statement that he had sold gold jewellery without bills.
CIT (A) had analysed the entire factual matrix and found that the assessee had received Rs.2 lakhs from her sons. Further, the CIT(A) after considering the conduct of the said N.S.R. Mohan held that his statement cannot be relied. When the Department filed the appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal examined the matter and granted partial relief to the assessee to the extent of 50 gms as there were purchase bills produced by the assessee in respect of 250 gms.
Tribunal solely relied upon the statement of N.S.R. Mohan stating that he had no transaction with the assessee and in the absence of purchase bill treated the same as unexplained jewellery. In our considered view, the approach of the Tribunal is incorrect because the statement of N.S.R. Mohan was that he did not sell any gold jewellerry to the assessee and it was the said N.S.R. Mohan has accepted the fact that the had more than seven transactions with the family members of the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) found that N.S.R. Mohan sold gold jewellery without bills and that is why he had stated that there were no transaction between himself and the assessee.
Thus, if the Tribunal was of the view that the statement of N.S.R. Mohan should not be discredited, then it should have remanded the matter to the authority but could not have taken a contrary view based on the statement which was appreciated by the CIT(A) and factual finding was recorded. That apart, the Tribunal should have held that the interpretation given by the CIT(A) is either perverse or unsustainable. In the absence of any such finding, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the CIT(A). That apart, the Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient funds and had proved the source of funds. Merely because gold merchant stated that he has no transactions with the assessee could not have been a reason to disbelieve the claim of the assessee. This is more so because admittedly N.S.R.Mohan had more than seven transactions with the family members of the assesssee and whenever he sold gold jewellery, it was without bills. Thus, for the above reasons, we find that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the order passed by the CIT (A). Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1997 - ITAT MUMBAI
Exemption u/s 11 - CIT-A justification in holding that the dividend income which is exempt u/s 10 of the Act need not be considered for the purpose of 85% application of income - HELD THAT:- Inclusion of dividend income (exempt) for the purpose of reckoning the 85% application of income is already settled in favour of the assessee in the case of DIT(E) vs Jasubhai Foundation [2015 (4) TMI 305 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that when the income from property held for charitable or religious purpose is not a matter covered or dealt with by section 10 that the Tribunal's view cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error or law apparent on the face of the record. The clear language of these provisions enables us to uphold the order of the Tribunal.Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Allowability of depreciation on assets as an application of income - whether the CITA was justified in allowing the claim of depreciation on assets also as an application of income, eventhough the entire cost of fixed assets had already been claimed as application of income for the purpose of reckoning the limits of 85% application of income - HELD THAT:- As we find that the issue is now settled by the recent decision of CIT vs Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation [2017 (12) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT] held when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1996 - ITAT CHENNAI
Validity of assessment - assessment completed without considering any of the submissions of the assessee but by taking into consideration the evidences, which have been collected behind the back of the assessee and used in the assessment without giving assessee an opportunity of cross examination or rebuttal of the same - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has collected various evidences and the same have not been put for the assessee for its rebuttal. Further, perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has also not done any examination in respect of the advertisement revenues claimed to have been received by the assessee.
AO has completed the assessment purely on the basis of presumptions that the transactions are bogus. Thus, there is insufficiency of the facts coming out of the assessment order as also there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice in so far as evidences collected against the assessee have not been given to the assessee for his rebuttal.
In the interest of natural justice to both the sides, the assessment Order is set aside and the issues are restored to the file of ld. AO for re-adjudication denovo. AO shall provide the assessee all evidences collected by him and which he proposes to use in the course of assessment against the assessee. AO shall also be at liberty to call for any documents, which he feels is necessary for the completion of the assessment.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1994 - ITAT PUNE
Denial of deduction u/s.80P[2][a][i] - interest income earned from fixed deposits kept by it with nationalized banks - assessee is co-operative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members - HELD THAT:- As decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2012-13 in the case of ITO Vs. Sureshdada Jain Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha [2018 (11) TMI 1589 - ITAT PUNE]. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1993 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment u/s 153A - abatement of assessment proceedings pending as on the date of search - HELD THAT:- As in the present case, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.07.2005 and the search took place on 30.09.2005. As per the second proviso to section 153A of IT Act, assessment or reassessment proceedings if any relating to any Assessment Year falling within the period of six Assessment Years pending on the date of initiation of the search shall abate. Hence if the income for Assessment Year 2005- 06 for which assessment pending on the date of search on 30.09.2005 cannot be assessed u/s. 153A then such income will remain unassessed because as per second proviso to section 153A, pending assessment proceedings on the date of search shall abate. This cannot be an interpretation of the provisions of section 153A and hence, we find no merit in these grounds raised by the assessee and therefore, the same are rejected.
Disallowance of business loss - As seen that the disallowance made by the AO is not on adhoc basis. AO has noted that the assessee has claimed expenses of Rs. 34,379/- as against miscellaneous income of Rs. 5,160/-. The AO has also noted that out of Rs. 34,379/-, the assessee has filed copy of bank account for having paid works contract tax of Rs. 20,000/-. In our considered opinion, this payment of Rs. 20,000/- is covered u/s. 43B of IT Act and therefore, the AO disallowed the remaining amount of expenses of Rs. 14,379/- being Rs. 34,379/- less Rs. 20,000/-. This disallowance made by the AO is on this basis that the assessee has not carried on any business activity in his individual capacity as proprietor of M/s. Rakha Builders and Developers. Hence, on this issue, we find no infirmity in the orders of authorities below. Accordingly Ground no. 4 is also rejected.
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that assessee has failed to prove that the payment is not in the nature of advance. Before us also, it could not be established by assessee that the amount given by the company to the assessee was given under business exigencies. Therefore, we find no merit in this claim. We also find that CIT (A) has also given this finding that this is undisputed fact that the company which advanced the money to the present assessee is not engaged in the business of lending of money and therefore, the payment made by the company by way of advance to assessee should be assessed as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) and this categorical finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted by ld. AR of assessee. This is also a clear finding of CIT(A) that the assessee is a shareholder of that company holding not less than 10% of the voting power of that company in question i.e. M/s. Anriya Project Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, in respect of advance given by company to the present assessee, the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of IT Act are applicable - We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Ground no. 5 and 6 are also rejected.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1991 - SC ORDER
Penalty u/s 271D - failure to comply with Section 269SS - reasonable cause u/s 273B for entering into such transactions through journal entries - failure to comply with Section 269SS was on account of reasonable cause on the part of the respondents - as per HC view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order holding that no penalty can be imposed upon the respondents as there was a reasonable cause in terms of Section 271B of the Act for having received loans / deposits through journal entries is at the very least is a possible view in the facts of the case - HELD THAT:- We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1990 - ITAT DELHI
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee claimed expenses on account of book charges under the head ‘administrative and other expenses’ - HELD THAT:- As section 195(1) uses expression "sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act", and section 195 uses the word 'payer' and not the word "assessee", ‘ Payer’ becomes assessee-in-default, only when he fails to fulfil statutory obligation under section 195(1). If payment does not contain any element of income, payer cannot be made liable. He cannot be declared to be an assessee-in-default.
When a payer remits amount to a non-resident out of India, he claims deduction or allowances under the Act for as an "expenditure".
From order passed by AO it is an admitted position that payment made by assessee represents its share of expenses incurred by the group companies on cost-to-cost basis. Ld. AO made addition only on the ground that assessee made certain payments to a non-resident without deducting TDS. Nowhere there is any material that has been brought on record by Ld.AO to establish that payments made to non-resident involved an element of income which is chargeable to tax in India.
We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A) and the same is upheld. Accordingly grounds raised by revenue stand dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1989 - ITAT CHENNAI
Gain on land sold - nature of land sold - assessee had entered into JDA - agricultural Land or capital asset u/s 2(14) - HELD THAT:- As to the relevance of the intention of the purchaser, in deciding on the nature of the land sold, CIT (Appeals) who went adverse to the assessee Smt. Syed Abdul Kader Aysthath Fasleen Amina, had himself stated of his order that out of 13 conditions set out in this judgment, assessee had satisfied atleast four. Just because assessee received an amount higher than the guideline value would not show that the land was non agricultural. Agricultural land cannot become non agricultural only for a reason that were development of a commercial nature in the nearby areas.
In the circumstances, we are inclined to follow the decision of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of Shri. S.A. Mafaz Mohammed and uphold the view that the land sold by the assessee, in so far assessment year 2010-2011 is concerned was agricultural and not a capital asset coming within the meaning of Section 2(14) - The gains on sale thereof was not exigible to tax.
Addition of agricultural income - HELD THAT:- Assessee could not bring in evidence to prove the earning of the agricultural income despite being required by the ld. Assessing Officer. Having not done so, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in our opinion, erred in deleting the addition made for the claim of agricultural income We set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this aspect and re-instate the addition.
Addition of term loan interest - - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) clearly observed that loan were used for construction of Usman Road property and this was clearly indicated in the sanction letter. Also CIT-A accepted the claim of the assessee with a finding that it was utilized for repayment of an advance received from M/s. SSPDL, which was earlier used for repaying a loan taken from M/s. BOBL for construction of the building. Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. Departmental Representative to show that the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were incorrect or not based on records.
Addition of Corporation Tax - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed of 1/3rd of the property was gifted by her to the assessee on 30.03.1994 through a registered release deed. Hence, the corporation tax paid in the name of previous owner Smt. Sithi Sayeedha in our opinion was rightly considered by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as allowable.
Compensation received on acquisition of 666 sq. mtrs land at survey No.14/3A2B, being treated as exigible to capital gains - HELD THAT:- Though the intention at the time of purchase of the land initially was crucial, subsequent events, if they show strong indication of a change of such intention, such events need to be considered. Once assessees sold 1.85 acres out of 9.32 acres, they became fully aware that the land sold was being commercially exploited. When they sold the first parcel of land, the initial intention at the time of purchase was very relevant.
We cannot say assessees had the same intention in holding the balance land as they had initially. No doubt, they can bring in evidence to show the agricultural use in subsequent years, if they are convinced on the continuing agricultural nature of the land. However on question like nature of land sold, there can be no rule of resjudicate. Lower authorities had simply followed their decision for assessment year 2010-11 and held the land acquired by Government as non-agricultural, for assessment year 2012-2013 also.
The question regarding nature of the land, which was subject to acquisition during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2012-2013 requires re-visit by AO. We therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities below and remit this issue back to the file of AO for consideration afresh as per law. Accordingly appeal of the assessee Smt. Syed Abdul Kader Aysthath Fasleen Amina for assessment year 2012-2013 is allowed for Statistical purpose.
Rectification u/s 154 - Interest u/s 234A - HELD THAT:- As per the ld. AO intimation u/s.143(1) could not be considered as an assessment and therefore the assessment done pursuant to the notice u/s 148 could be considered as the first regular assessment. According to him, the assessment done u/s 147 had to be construed as a regular assessment for application of Section 234A - In our opinion, the question of interpretation of Explanation (3) to Section 234A(1) is not something beyond debate. What can be rectified u/s.154 of the Act is only a glaring and apparent mistake and not one which requires long debates and interpretation of law. In taking this view, we are fortified in the case of ITO vs Volkhart Bros. [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT]. We are therefore of the opinion that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in quashing the order of the ld. Assessing Officer.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1987 - ITAT CHENNAI
Profits on sale of land - LTCG - CIT(A) held that the land comprised in the project ‘RMT Phase II’ is a capital asset and the gain out of the sale of the same should be treated as capital gains - HELD THAT:- When we called for the relevant documents, both the parties could not place anything but pleaded on the orders of the lower authorities. However, both of them have agreed that this issue can be remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall place all the materials in its support before the AO and comply to the AO’s requirements as per law. A O is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, but he shall furnish adequate opportunity to the assesssee on the material etc to be used against it and decide the matter in accordance with law for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12.
The proposal of the AO for enhancement of income to the CIT(A), towards disallowance of expenditure in the activity of breeding horses for assessment year 2008-09, the Ld. DR pleaded on the lines of grounds of appeal extracted.
CIT(A) followed the order of this tribunal, supra, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order and hence, the corresponding grounds of the Revenue for assessment year 2008- 09 is dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1985 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe or reason to suspect - disallowing genuine loss suffered on share trading treating the same as contrived on account of client code modification - HELD THAT:- As recording shows that this was not at all a reason to believe envisaged u/s 147 of the Act. At best the same can be considered as reason to suspect only. The recording states that the assessee Sh. Tulsi Dass has suffered a loss in a transaction in which client code modification was involved and earned profit- in a transaction in which client code modification was involved. However, there is no material on record to show that prima facie the said client code modification was because of some malafide reason and the assessee has received cash in lieu of payment made for loss and profit in which client code modification was involved.
Thus, the above recording does not satisfy requirement of law mandatory for assuming jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. My above view is supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017 (1) TMI 904 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Therefore, the reassessment order passed pursuant to the above recording is hereby quashed and ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1979 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Exemption u/s 11 - non-registration of the Appellant u/s 12AA - applicability of proviso of Sec.12A (2) which was inserted w.e.f 1st October, 2014 - benefit of Sec. 11/12 as well as 10(23C)(iii ad) of the Act was denied to the assessee society on the ground that the assessee is not registered u/s. 12AA - HELD THAT:- As observed that the Appellant got registration u/s 12AA of the Act w.e.f. 09-02-2012 and as on that date the appeal against the quantum was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) which was decided on 10-10-2012 and against which the appeal is still pending for adjudication before this bench and hence the assessment proceedings can be construed as continuing and pending.
While respectfully following the dictum of the Apex Court as well as the Co-ordinate Benches, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, therefore, we do not have any hesitation to held that proviso to Sec.l2A(2) which was added by Finance Act, 2014 shall be retrospective in operation.
There is nothing either on record or otherwise brought on record by the Ld. DR to the effect that there is any change in the objects and activities of Assesse/Trust for the preceding assessment years involved. Hence, we are inclined to held that registration granted to the assessee by the CIT(E) vide letter dated 09-02-2012 shall be effective from 10-08-2008 being the date of formation of society and the assessee shall be entitled to get the benefit of registration for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-2011 as well, against which appeals are under consideration. Consequently we set aside the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) as well as assessment order and delete the addition, by allowing the assessee's appeal.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1978 - ITAT PUNE
Capital subsidy - incentive received by the assessee from Govt. of Maharashtra in the form of Octroi Refund - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the assessee has received incentive in the form of Octroi refund under Govt. of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. [2018 (8) TMI 1752 - ITAT PUNE] in an identical set of facts has held subsidy received by the assessee under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 as capital in nature - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1977 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 80P - assessee society is a cooperative society registered under Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 - As per AO assessee bank may not function as a normal scheduled bank. But it functions as a bank specialized in re-finance. The business of banking cannot be narrowly taken to the definition of banking as per the Banking Regulations Act. The assessee bank gets loans from NABARD, State Governments, raises debentures and finance to its members - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Sec.80P envisages exemption of income from tax for a cooperative society in the case of cooperative societies engaged in the business by providing credit facility to its members and the sub Sec.4 of the Sec.80P carves out an exception to this provision by providing that the exemption u/s.80P shall not be available to a Cooperative bank.
However, primary agricultural cooperative societies which are engaged in agricultural and rural development bank whose business operations are confined to taluk level, the deduction would be available. In the present case, the AO had not gone into the question of verifying whether the Respondent-assessee-society is a mere cooperative society or a cooperative bank. In case, it is engaged in the activities of cooperative bank, and activities are not confined to the taluk level, it is clearly hit by provisions of Sub.Sec.4 of Sec.80P of the Act.
It is also requires to be verified whether the activities of the Respondent-society are confined to its Members and non-members also. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be restored to the file of the AO for the purpose of carrying out exercise of verification of business activities of the appellant on the above lines and accordingly we remit the issue to the file of the AO for examining the applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME ] - Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1976 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee filed revised return beyond the due date for filing revised return and only due to the enquiries in the assessment proceedings - defective notice u/s 274 - argument of non specification of clear charge - CIT-A deleted the penalty levy - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act which is at page no. 17 of the paper book reveals that the AO has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the default committed by the assessee, i.e. whether it is concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied. In this regard, we find that in its order in the case of M/s Manjunatah Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] relied on by the assessee /respondent, had held that such a notice, as had also been issued in the case in hand, is invalid and the consequential penalty proceedings are also not valid.
Thus we hold that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case in hand is invalid and consequently, the penalty proceedings are also invalid - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1974 - ITAT KOLKATA
Allowability of depreciation - AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that excavation/raising of coal is not manufacture or production of any article or thing - AO has disallowed 50% of additional depreciation claimed only on the ground that lack of details being filed - disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A) at 20% of the claim - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after considering the details of plant and machinery used by the assessee for the purpose of extraction/raising of coal. The assessee claims to have produced audit statements which gave all the required particulars before the Assessing Officer. We direct the assessee to once again produce all the details as required by the Assessing Officer in support of his claim for deduction of additional depreciation. The additional depreciation should be granted on such plant and machinery that have been used for the production of coal. The Assessing Officer should keep in mind that the assessee is a public sector undertaking and its accounts are audited by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India and such audited statements have evidentiary value.
Allowability of provision of NCWA-VIII and executives ad hoc payments - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As the nomenclature used was “provision”, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the liability in question is not crystallized. The assessee produced wage agreement arrived at with the unions in support of the claim that the liability in question is a crystallized liability.
The issue in question is covered by the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Western Coalfield Ltd. [2009 (6) TMI 630 - ITAT NAGPUR] Interim relief @15% of the basic wage affected from 1st July 2008 had been made from the month of April, 2008. The communication of this effect was received from Coal India Ltd. on 16.04.2008. The interim relief to employees is covered under National Coal Wage Agreement. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A).
Excluding from the total income of the assessee, exempt income by way of interest on account of exempt RBI Bonds, which was wrongly included by the assessee in its total income - HELD THAT:- The fresh claim was made for the exclusion before the ld. CIT(A). This was not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and submitted that this issue should have been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law as the amount in question is not taxable under the Income Tax Act. On a conspectus of the matter, we admit this additional ground and set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. This fresh claim by way of a ground of appeal is admitted by us by applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(supra). The Assessing Officer is directed to dispose off this issue on merits in accordance with law.
Carry forward of unabsorbed allowance for deduction u/s 35E - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee own case we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer passing orders in accordance with this order of the Tribunal on this issue.
Disallowance paid on account of donation - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee own case [2017 (7) TMI 1362 - ITAT KOLKATA] expenditure in question was incurred in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement under sub-title, Education Facility and Workers Education. This is not a donation per se, but an obligation imposed on the assessee in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement.
Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [2002 (2) TMI 344 - ITAT NAGPUR] noted as a fact that the contributions to the various schools were not incurred voluntarily, but the same was incurred to discharge the obligation, which fell on the assessee in terms of a National Coal Wage Agreement entered into with the employees' unions and such an agreement was enforceable under the law both under the Indian Contract Act as also the industrial Disputes Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Deduction on account of expenditure on environmental expenses and on account of land reclamation expenses - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case the appellant’s case is not covered by sec.40A(9).
Grants to “Sports & Recreation” - HELD THAT:- As in the assessee’s own case while adjudicating on identical issues for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2007-08 have taken a view that the claim in question is allowable expenditure. The ld. DR could not controvert these submissions of the assessee that the orders in question cover this issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1970 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- We find that under the identical facts and in the case of assessee’s group concern, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mahaavir Universal Homes Pvt. Ltd.[2018 (11) TMI 1898 - ITAT MUMBAI] has directed the AO to apply a GP rate of 3% to assess the bogus purchase under similar facts. We, therefore, respectfully following the same, direct the AO to apply the GP rate of 3% of the bogus purchase.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1969 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowing Sales Incentive expenses - A.O. for disallowing payment is that the fact of the appellant was already crystallized during the year on the basis of sales booked and hence the liability in respect of payment of sales incentive on the sales booked during the year by the company and was already known to the company - HELD THAT:- As relying on INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD. [2016 (9) TMI 110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] ground of appeal allowed.
Disallowing Sales Promotion expenses - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. SUNFLOWER PHARMACY [2017 (12) TMI 1552 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] which has already given relief to some pharmaceutical company, therefore, we allow this ground of appeal.
Disallowance of Employees Provident Fund u/s. 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- This issue is already against the appellant for late deposit of Employees Provident Fund with the authority by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of GSRTC [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - . In the meanwhile, it is noticed that on this issue appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and recently Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in [2018 (10) TMI 1632 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that two clear ways are possible to enable the appellant-assessee to get benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in case the High Court judgment is reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court - A.R. requested that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as aforesaid therefore this matter may be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A). Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1968 - TELEGANA HIGH COURT
Depreciation @ 40% on vehicles given on lease under hire purchase agreement - HELD THAT:- Question already been answered against the Revenue by a Bench of this Court [2012 (9) TMI 1222 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] Therefore, following the same, the first question of law is answered against the appellant.
Interest u/s.244A (2) - there was a delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has recorded a finding on fact to the effect that the delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates was not attributable to the assessee.
In fact, the assessee claimed credit to the extent of ₹ 1,10,70,255/-.But, the Assessing Officer gave credit only to the extent of ₹ 1,08,39,129/-. The certificates for the value of ₹ 2,31,126/- were found to be defective. But, the Tribunal recorded a factual finding that the assessee had no control in respect of the issue of TDS Certificate. We do not think that the second question of law arises for consideration in this case.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1965 - ITAT KOLKATA
Validity of Revision u/s 263 - exclusive jurisdiction u/s 263 of PCIT - PCIT has called for proposal from JCIT/Assessing Officer to exercise his jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Since the department could not controvert the contents of the letter of the JCIT which clearly brings out that ld. PCIT has called for proposal from JCIT/Assessing Officer to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263. It means the ld. PCIT has not exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 himself but he exercised the jurisdiction at the instance of the AO / JCIT which is against the provision of law. The power of revisional jurisdiction is vested only with the ld. PCIT. Therefore we note that the exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act itself is not in accordance with law hence we cancel the order passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1964 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment u/s 153A - Whether ITAT was correct in holding that completed assessment could not be abated unless some incriminating evidence or material was found during search qua the additions made by the AO? - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed position that the issue is covered by the judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Continental Warehouisng Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and anr. [2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In such judgment the view of the High Court was that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search could be brought to tax in relation to these years for which the notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued. Under the circumstances, tax appeals are dismissed.
........
|
