|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Appellate Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 89202 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2023 (2) TMI 59
Exemption u/s 11 - denying the Registration u/s 12AA of the Act and also rejected the exemption u/s 80G - RGG - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the object of the Company reveals that the assessee is having the object to carry out the activities of ‘education’ and there is a specific bar/Clause that ‘none of the object of the Company will be carried out on commercial basis’. As also found that the assessee Company is engaging in imparting education in the field of mountaineering, rafting high attitude trekking, wilderness medicines and wilderness first aid. The assessee has produced the materials to show that the assessee company since from its existence from the year 2010 trained so many students including para military forces, BSF Officers. While disposing the application u/s 12AA of....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 58
TDS u/s 194C or 194I - account of CAM charges - Commissioner affirmed the action of the AO in holding that CAM charges paid by the Assessee are part of rent, liable for TDS u/s 194-I however, held that if the deductee has paid tax on the CAM charges received from the Assessee, then the Assessee cannot be treated as Assessee in default - HELD THAT:- In the instant case it is an admitted fact, as not refuted by the learned DR, that the Assessee has deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act, and the facts are not distinguishable to the facts involved in Yum Restaurants India case [2022 (10) TMI 256 - ITAT DELHI] consequently we are inclined to direct the AO to recompute the tax liability accordingly.
-
2023 (2) TMI 57
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - assessee received interest from Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNL Ltd.) - HELD THAT:- Assessee received interest from Sardar Sarovaor Narmada Nigam Limited which is not co-operative society. The Interest earned on investment in SSNL Limited deposits though claimed as from the operational funds of the assessee society, the same is from surplus funds of the assessee society. The decisions cited by the Ld. AR in respect of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Limited and others [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT]has categorically mentioned in paragraph no.35 that interest or dividend income derived from Co-operative Society from investments with other Co-operative Society are entitled to deduct the whole of such income, but in earlier paragraph i.e. paragraph no.33 it....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 56
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - treating the purchase of shares as non-genuine and consequently sale of shares and LTCG as unexplained income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The assessee,submitted before us that on 21.11.2014 the assessee sold 5000 shares in Bombay Stock Exchange at different dates and gained Rs.675 per share within 24 months. Thus, there was exorbitant scrip increase from 20.04.2012 to 27.12.2014. AO also made observations in the Assessment Order that the assessee bought shares at Rs.20./- when the market price was of Rs.17.45 on 02.04.2012 in fact. There was no basis from the analysis of the company that Kappac Pharma Limited scrip price shares. These objections are separate objections by the AO from the investigation report. The assessment order is not solely based on investigation but the AO has verified each aspect abou....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 55
Revision u/s 263 - AO did not verify interest income offered and income as per Form 26AS - limited scrutiny case - assessee case was selected for scrutiny through CASS in the limited scrutiny to verify “Large other expenses claimed in the profit & loss A/c and mismatch in sales turnover reported in audit report & ITR” - HELD THAT:- We find in the case of Balvinderkumar [2021 (3) TMI 649 - ITAT DELHI] as quashed the 263 proceedings by holding that in case of limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the reasons for which the matter was selected for limited scrutiny and therefore, it would not be open to pass a revisionary order u/s 263 by the CIT on other aspects. Since the case of the assessee in the instant case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify “Large Other Expense claimed in the Profit....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 54
Addition u/s 68 - Addition of agricultural income as unexplained cash credit - main grievance of the lower authorities in the instant case is that the agricultural income is earned by the assessee in the distant location at Beed whereas the cash deposits were made by the assessee in a bank account maintained at Dadar - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that assessee had furnished entire cash book containing the cash inflows from various sources and cash outflows. Hence, what is to be seen is availability of positive cash balance with the assessee on each date of making cash deposits. In the instant case, the same has been duly complied with by the assessee as she is having sufficient cash balances in her books to make cash deposits in the bank account. It is not the case of the Revenue that the agricultural income earned by the assessee to....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 53
Correct head of income - treatment of surplus fund out of the sale of properties - business income as treated by the Assessing Authority or the capital gain as claimed by the assessee - whether the Assessing Authority justified to treat the transaction under the different head of income? - HELD THAT:- The assessee claimed it as gain arising out of transfer of capital asset. On the other hand, the AO treated it as business receipts arising from real estate business. Assessee laid great stress on intent of the assessee. Considering the fact that the properties in quantum were held for considerable longer period of time, it is not the case where the properties have been sold within a short span of time after their acquisition. Coupled with the fact that the assessee is not engaged into any systematic real estate business activity. Thus hold ....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 52
Taxability of rental income - CIT-A held income of the appellant is chargeable under the head “Income from Profits and Gains of Business and Profession” as against the income offered to tax under the head “Income from House Property” by the appellant - Deduction of Interest paid on loan to acquire the property - disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that the ratio laid down in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments [2015 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] squarely apply on the facts of the case, therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) wherein rental income has been taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession. Once the income has been held to be taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession the same has to be computed a....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 51
Delayed deposit of Employees Contribution to ESI/PF - assessment u/s 143(3) - Delay in depositing the employees’ contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevant Fund Act - As argued disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and, therefore, cannot be sustained - HELD THAT:- We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s P R Packaging Services [2022 (12) TMI 841 - ITAT MUMBAI] as not given any independent finding but has simply relied upon another decision of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd [2022 (5) TMI 461 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the co-ordinate bench has based its decision on the interpretation and binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdic....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 50
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - rectify the charge of interest income under the head Income from Other Sources[IOS]- contention of the assessee firm that the said amount of interest was wrongly added while filing ITR - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s retuned income, after due examination and verification was accepted by an order dt. 07/12/2017 u/s 143(3) - Subsequently, on the receipt of demand intimation from CPC, the appellant finding fault with the tax liability determined u/s 143(3) of the Act, filed a rectification application dt. 14/05/2019 u/s 154 seeking thereby deletion of interest income charged to tax under IOS, alleging it as erroneously crept-in while filing the ITR, which both the Ld. TAB rejected as falling outside the jurisdiction of section 154 of the Act. In our considered view, no error can be said to be apparent o....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 49
Unexplained expenditure - payment of interest in cash which has not been recorded in the books of accounts - AR submitted that this enhancement of the assessment by the Ld. CIT (A) was made without providing any proper opportunity to the assessee - HELD THAT:- In this case, we find that no such opportunity was provided to the assessee. Therefore, following the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee shall be provided a reasonable opportunity with respect to enhancement of disallowance of interest - Accordingly, in order to provide a reasonable opportunity, we remit the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh - Ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 56(2) - allotment of shares - allegation that, appellant had received shares for a sum less th....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 48
Disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC - Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) - employees’ contribution towards PF though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the payment of employees’ contribution to the provident fund was made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act but beyond the due date as provided in the respective Statutes. Essentially the condition precedent for deduction is that therefore, such amounts which are held in trust for the employees should be deposited by the employer on or before the due date as prescribed under the relevant Statutes - if this approach and reasoning is adopted then the non-obstante clause u/s 43B or anything contained in that provision would n....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 28
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 on account of cash deposited which remained unexplained - HELD THAT:- As correctly held by CIT-A Prima facie there was material available with the AO in the form of information from the from ADIT(lnv.)-02, Kanpur that that huge cash deposits has been credited in the various banks that income had escaped assessment. In spite of number of opportunities afforded, the appellant has not substantiated its assertions raised in the grounds of appeal. Since the appellant has chosen not to attend proceedings before the undersigned or furnished any submission to substantiate the grounds taken, it is held that the AO had validly initiated proceedings by way of issue of notice u/s 148. Commissioner not only considered the factual aspects of the case, while deciding the validity of the initi....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 27
Penalty u/s 271C - Addition @ 2% of the EDC amount paid to HUDA on which the TDS was to be deducted u/s 194C - debatable issue - whether there was reasonable cause/bona fide reason within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act for not deducting the TDS? - HELD THAT:- Cases of m/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. [2019 (9) TMI 39 - ITAT DELHI], Shree Vardhman Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (11) TMI 1053 - ITAT DELHI] and Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 328 - ITAT DELHI] clearly that on payment of “EDC” to the HUDA, no TDS is liable to be deducted, hence we are inclined not to interfere with the decision of the learned Commissioner, in deleting the penalty on this count. Appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 26
Revision u/s 263 - Share Premium regarded as Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - proceedings declared under DTVSV - assessment order passed u/s. 143[3] rws 147 with regard to the amount representing the face value of shares issued by the assessee - HELD THAT:- In assessee’s case the declaration under DTVSV is made for the proceedings in which disputed amount pertaining to the allotment of shares to shell company on premium. The assessee has filed the necessary forms under DTVSV and the Form 5 confirming the settlement under the scheme issue by the PCIT. Therefore the impugned transaction in our view has been part of the proceedings declared under DTVSV. We see merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that without verification of the face value, the AO would not have assessed the premium amount and that the amount towards face value of the sh....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 25
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - assessee paid the disputed amount to a Malaysian entity for incorporation of a company in Malaysia - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Malaysian entity does not have any PE in India. Therefore, the payment made, which is in the nature of business profit is not taxable in India. That being the factual position, there was no obligation on the assessee to withhold tax at source u/s 195 of the Act while making such payment. At this stage, we must observe, AO while disallowing the payment under section 40(a)(i) of the Act has made a general observation that payments are covered under Article 12 of the DTAA, without specifying which particular DTAA he is referring to Article 12 of India-Malaysia DTAA is in relation to income in the nature of royalty. Payment made by the assessee to the Malaysian entity certai....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 24
Unexplained cash credit - Unexplained gifts received from a person covered by the definition of “relative” under Explanation (e) to section 56(2) - assessee has not filed return of income or bank statement of the donor, in the absence of which the genuineness and capacity, i.e., creditworthiness of the donor is not proved - HELD THAT:- As assessee has received gift from Smt Bhanuben B. Patel and Smt Champaben Sojitra by submitting the bank statements, gift deed and other evidences in support of the receipts of the above said gifts which is placed in Paper Book. As relying on Ushaben H. Ghadia case [2022 (3) TMI 1487 - ITAT MUMBAI] we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer delete the additions made in this case. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 23
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of tax at source - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:-Though the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on the impugned amount, the payee on other hand had paid taxes on the same and the assessee had filed the stipulated certificate as per Rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules certifying the fact of taxes have been paid by the payee (India Infoline Investment Services Ltd. in the present case) on the impugned payment. CIT(A) in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Landmark Township Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that in such circumstances, where taxes are shown to have been paid by the payee, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was called for in the hands of the payer for default in taxes deduction at source. DR was unable to convert this factual finding of the ld.CIT(A) that....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 22
Royalty - payments made by the assessee to Google Ireland Ltd. - India-Ireland DTAA - liability to withhold tax fastened on the assessee - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, this issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2022 (10) TMI 1039 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein held that impugned payment cannot be characterized as royalty under the India-Ireland DTAA. TDS u/s 195 - As decided on payment made by GIPL to M/s. Google Ireland Ltd. for purchase of online advertisement phase for onward resale to India advertisers, in terms of distribution agreement dated 12.12.2005, were not in nature of royalty as defined u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3)(a) of TTA between India and Ireland and observed that GIPL was not an assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act, for not deducting the tax at source, on the payment i....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 21
Revision u/s 263 - failure of assessee to substantiate the source of deposit - short assessment by AO HELD THAT:- Here in the present case on limited question of fact Ld. PCIT exercised its jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as Ld. PCIT found that the cash deposits in bank account of assessee with ICICI Bank Ld. AO has wrongly taken the figure at Rs.3,00,74,620/- and which even assessee admitted in its reply to the show-cause notice that cash deposit was Rs.3,05,73,196/-. Thus, the short assessment to the extent of Rs.4,98,576/- has been taken into consideration as difference which Ld. AO failed to consider. Certainly as far as the facts are concerned, in spite of having the material information in the form of bank account statement available with him, the Ld. AO had fallen in error in not taking into account the correct figure. The failure ....... + More
........
|
