|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 643 Records
-
2015 (4) TMI 1095 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 69 - unexplained source of the credits made in the four undisclosed bank accounts - contention of the assessee is that the accounts were held jointly with other relatives - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is no dispute with regard to the fact the account Nos.9427,61506, 61175 & 61095 with the Surat Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bhgatalao Branch, Surat, were not disclosed by the assessee to the Income Tax Department while filing the return. The explanation of the assessee in respect of these accounts was that the accounts were jointly held with other persons and the amount credited therein was out of the savings, loan and maturity of mutual funds. In our considered view, if any, credit entries found in the accounts of the assessee, it is incumbent upon him to explain the source of such credit. In the present case, the assessee has merely made a sweeping statement that these amounts were out of loans from friends and relatives, cash deposits, interest income and from maturity of mutual funds.
The assessee also furnished certain confirmations from Jayshreeben Parmar, Chandan Parmar, Hansaben Parmar and Bhudarji Mithal. However, the assessee has not furnished the proof of creditworthiness of such creditors. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition being the loan received from friends and relatives without any supporting evidences of the creditworthiness of such creditors.
Further, the ld.CIT(A) observed that there was an opening cash balance of ₹ 10 lacs which he presumed that amount might have been used for depositing in the bank account. Before us, the assessee could not point out as to whether the amount of ₹ 10 lacs shown as cash on hand related to the account declared by the assessee. These accounts are not the recorded accounts. The assessee was required to demonstrate with evidence as to how this cash was generated. Therefore, we cannot affirm the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby set aside. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have passed a speaking order in respect of genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of depositors. It is also not clear whether the transactions in question had been reflected by other persons or not in their respective books of accounts. And also whether such transactions were reflected in their respective income-tax returns of the parties, if not what action has been taken in their hands. Under these facts, we restore this issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh in the light of our observation made hereinbefore. - Decided in favour revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1094 - ITAT MUMBAI
Levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) - order u/s.143(3) adding surrendered amount u/s.69A - Held that:- From the record we found that at the very first instance share application money was surrendered by assessee with a request not to initiate any penalty proceedings. The AO passed order u/s.143(3) adding surrendered amount u/s.69A on the plea that assessee has surrendered amount only after issue of notice. It is not disputed by the department that sum which was added u/s.69A was one which was surrendered by the assessee itself. Neither there was any detection nor there was any information in the possession of the department except for the amount surrendered by the assessee and in these circumstances it cannot be said that there was any concealment.
Penalty should be imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the position, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001 (6) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court ) observed that where assessee has surrendered the income after persistence queries by the AO and where revised return has been regularized by the Revenue, explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peach of mind and to come out of waxed litigation could be treated as bona fide, accordingly levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was held to be not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1093 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty under Section 271(1)(e) - disallowance of claim made by the assessee under the head interest paid - Held that:- Any addition made by the AO should not lead to automatic levy of concealment penalty. Making a disallowance is different from levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Fact of the case are that she had paid interest amounting to Rs. ₹ 32.40 lacs, that she was under the bonafide belief that the same was an allowable expenditure, that she had filed one of the plausible explanation before the AO during penalty proceedings. Considering the background and the tax effect involved we are of the opinion that it was not a fit case of levy/confirming the penalty. See Mahavir Irrigation Pvt.Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1088 - ITAT PUNE
Addition made on account of unclaimed liability appearing in the Balance Sheet - Held that:- The assessee continues to recognize the liability and once the liability has been so recognized by the assessee, there is no merit in treating the same as income of the assessee though some of the amounts may not be recoverable by application of provisions of Limitation Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition on account of premium paid on Government securities - Held that:- The issue before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2009-10 and following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in allowing the deduction on account of amortization premium paid on Government securities to hold the Securities held by the Bank are in the nature of Stock-in-Trade Both the authorities below have merely gone on the nomenclature of the head under which the Securities are held. In our considered view, nomenclature cannot be decisive for the assessee Bank. We, therefore, hold that Addition made on account of premium paid on investment in Government securities is to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee
Allowability of broken period interest Held that:- There is no difference in the amount in tax, whether one adopts the assessee's method or the Department's method. Under either method, the same amount is offered for tax. The Department has not been able to show in this case as to why the method adopted by the assessee-bank ought to be rejected. On the other hand, the Department has not been able to explain as to why broken period interest received should be taxed whereas broken period interest payment should be disallowed, See American Express International Banking Corporation Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax [2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY High Court]- Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1080 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained expenditure relating to purchases - Held that:- The assessing officer has made the impugned addition only on the basis of information given by the Sales tax department, he did not make independent enquiry with the sales tax department, the assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine the officials of sales tax department, the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove purchases of sands and its movement were not disproved, the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the payments made against purchases by way of account payee cheques were also not disproved. Under these set of facts, by following the decision rendered by this bench of Tribunal in the case of Deepak Popatlal Gala (2015 (6) TMI 944 - ITAT MUMBAI ), we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
Adhoc addition from out of purchases - Held that:- Assessing officer has made adhoc addition only on the reasoning that the assessee has failed to furnish the details. The case of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) was that he was having all the relevant details. We notice that the first appellate authority has deleted this disallowance without verifying those details. Since this addition was made for want of evidences and details and since the details, if any, available with the assessee were not examined by the tax authorities, we are of the view that this issue requires to be restored to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine the same afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the details that may be called for by the AO on this issue. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1077 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty u/s. 271D - Deposits and loans in cash in excess of prescribed limit - Held that:- We find that the facts are that the assessee company Mahmood Associates (P) Ltd. received cash loan from its director Md. Mahmood. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by various High Courts i.e. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Indore Plastics P. Ltd. [2002 (7) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court ], Idhayam Publications Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 97 - MADRAS High Court] and Natvarlal Purshottamdas Pareekh [2008 (2) TMI 287 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], supra, we find that the penalty levied by JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata and confirmed by CIT(A) needs to be quashed. No contrary decision was pointed out by Ld. Sr. DR despite we specifically asked him whether any High Court decision is available against the assessee or not. In term of the above, we delete the penalty levied by JCIT and confirmed by CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1075 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
TDS u/s 194C - Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance - freight payments due non-deduction of TDS - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee hires its payee’s vehicles on routine basis in case its own fleet is unable to perform the transporting assignments. The authorities below treat such an arrangement as a contract to invoke Section 194(c) of the Act. We do not find any material on record to indicate any risk and responsibility being passed over to the payees. That being the case, we observe that a mere hiring job work without any other evidence does not partakes the colour of risk and responsibility forming essential condition of a contract.
The assessee’s payees have not been paid in lieu of any risk and responsibility to treat the impugned freight payments as those covered u/s.194C of the Act. The assessee’s former plea (supra) succeeds. The latter one has become infructuous. The impugned section 40(a)(ia) disallowance is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1066 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Concept of capital or revenue receipt for a trust - amount received as development fund by the assessee and directly taken to the balance as liability - Held that:- We are informed that in the succeeding years 2009-10 onwards the revenue has consistently brought to tax similar amounts. In these circumstances we leave the question of law open to be urged later in an appropriate case.
As far as the other issue with respect to claim for depreciation allowed in favour of the assessee is concerned, the Court noticed that the question of law sought to be urged stands covered in the assessee’s favour in Director of Income Tax V. Indraprasth Cancer Society [2014 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2015 (4) TMI 1064 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Eligibility of deduction u/s 35(2AB) - validity of Certificate issued by the prescribed authority - Held that:- If any question arises as to what extent, any activity constitutes or constituted or an asset is or was being used for scientific research, then the Assessing Officer would be required to refer such question to the Board for being referred to the prescribed authority. The decision of the prescribed authority in this regard would be final, inasmuch as, the certification of such expenditure is being examined by an expert body and undisputedly, such exercise has been outsourced by the Revenue under the Act itself, since the prescribed authority being possessed of requisite expertise, it would be in a better position to certify as to whether such expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) would fall within the said provision or outside. This exercise of examining the correctness of the Certificate issued by the prescribed authority is not available to the Assessing Officer as could be seen from scheme of Section 35 of the Act.
As sub-section (4) of Section 43 will have to be considered, which defines as to what activities would constitute "scientific research" as indicated under the said Section namely, Section 43(4). As to whether any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights in or arising out of scientific research as indicated in clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of Section 43 is an issue which requires to be examined by the prescribed authority itself and it would not be in the domain of the assessing authority to undertake such an exercise. When Section 35(2AB), Section 35(3) and Section 43(4) of the Act are read harmoniously, the irresistible conclusion that has be drawn would be that assessing officer cannot sit in judgment over the report submitted by the prescribed authority in Form No. 3CL. This view is also supported by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Mastek Ltd.'s case (2012 (9) TMI 264 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ). - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1060 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income in question was included in the return filed by the assessee under section 153AHeld that:- In view of the fact that the income in question was covered by the declaration made in the statement recorded under section 132(4) and the tax thereon was duly paid by the assessee, the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act will come into play on the facts of this case. Accordingly, as the assessee rightly contends, penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be sustained in law. In any event, as held in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. ACIT [2015 (1) TMI 201 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can only be imposed in respect of an income over and above the income disclosed in the return filed under section 153A, and since the income in question was included in the return filed by the assessee under section 153A, the impugned penalty is unsustainable. For this reason also, the impugned penalties therefore, deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1059 - ITAT CHENNAI
Denying deduction under section-10A - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in manufacturing activity/assembling the products, for exports, and also rendering Information Technology Enabled services which entitles the assessee to claim deduction U/s.10A of the Act. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Levy of interest U/s. 234B is mandatory see CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court]
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- The return was only processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and within a period of four years the assessment was reopened based on the information gathered while making assessment in the case of the assessee for the earlier period viz. A.Y. 2006-08 - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act read with Rule 8D for expense incurred on exempt dividend income for the assessment year 2007-08 - Held that:- Rule 8D was inserted by the IT(Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008 w.e.f 24.03.2008, however the relevant assessment year before us is 2007-08, therefore Rule 8D will not be applicable to the case of the assessee. In this situation, this Bench of the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that 2% of the exempt income should be disallowed as expense incurred for earning exempt income while invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 2% of the exempt income earned by the assessee. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance U/s. 14A r.w.r 8D for expense incurred on investments made to earn exempt income for the assessment year 2009-10 - Held that:- Since the Rule 8D is applicable for the relevant assessment year, we find that the computation of disallowance made U/s.14A of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer to be in order and accordingly, we hereby uphold the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer.- Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1057 - SC ORDER
Depreciation on enhances value of assets – Intention to reduce tax liability or not - Slump sale – Held that:- HC order upheld [2014 (10) TMI 398 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - At the time of transfer of the assets, the assessee had no income for it to reduce its tax liabilities by way of such transfer, both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the AO was in error in invoking Explanation 3 to Section 43 for determining actual cost in the deal – Decided against revenue.
Interest expenditure on unpaid purchase consideration disallowed – Held that:- HC order upheld [2014 (10) TMI 398 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - in view of introduction of Explanation 8 to Section 43 (1) of the Act which was held retrospective in nature, the interest cannot be capitalized which was paid after the slump sale was effected and the factory was in operation, and therefore, expenses were revenue in nature - The directions given to the AO to allow the amount of interest of ₹ 1.57 Crores is upheld – Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1055 - ITAT MUMBAI
Relief u/s 80P - assessee is a credit co-operative Society - CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appealallowing relief u/s 8OP - Held that:- The conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jafari Momin Vikas Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as per CBDT Circular No. 133 of 2007 dated 9.5.2007 - Sub-section(4) of section 80P will not apply to an assessee which is not a co-operative bank - The respondent assessee is not a credit co-operative bank but a credit co-operative society - Exclusion clause of sub-section(4) of section 80P, would not apply to it. Also see CIT vs. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha [2015 (1) TMI 821 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1054 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 68 - Addition on undisclosed income - Held that:- It is no part of the duty of the Assessing Officer to make investigation for the purpose of collecting evidence in support of the case made out by the assessee. It is the bounden duty of the assessee to prove his case. If he has adduced prima facie evidence in support of his case, it will be for the Assessing Officer to adduce evidence to disprove the facts proved prima facie by the assessee. If the Assessing Officer fails to discharge his onus the prima facie evidence adduced by the assessee may in some cases become conclusive. But, if the assessee does not adduce any evidence it is no part of the duty of the Assessing Officer to start investigation and/or to collect evidence in support of the case of the assessee. It is to be pointed out that the assessee in this case did not disclose the identity of the persons to whom the payment was made. The assessee could have asked the Assessing Officer to issue summons to the so called middlemen under Section 131 and/or 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee could have done it because he knew the person to whom the payment was made. It was not, therefore, possible for the Assessing Officer even if he wanted to, to undertake any such enquiry. For the aforesaid reasons the submissions advanced by Mr. Sen are rejected. The judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal considering the admitted facts and circumstances of the case cannot but be said to have expressed a possible view and therefore the question has to be answered in the negative. The addition of a sum of ₹ 9 lacs as an undisclosed income is correct in law. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1050 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest u/s.14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- No disallowance of interest is warranted. In case own funds are available with the assessee, it is presumed that investment has been made out of the own funds. It is also a matter of record that rule 8D Is not applicable for the relevant assessment year 2007-08 under consideration, however, reasonable disallowance is warranted as per verdict of Hon’ble High Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). In the interest of justice and fairplay, we restore this issue back to the file of AO for deciding afresh after considering assessee’s contention regarding interest free funds available to it more than the borrowed funds.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Addition as undisclosed professional receipts on the basis of Annual Information Return (AIR) - Held that:- Assessee has offered much more professional receipts than the professional receipts shown in the AIR. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the addition so made by the AO which may be due to different accounting system being followed by payer of such fees. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1049 - ITAT CHENNAI
Loss incurred on account of forex derivative contracts - AO treated as speculative loss and thereby not allowing the assessee to set off the same against its business income - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of garments and the assessee has entered into foreign currency derivative transactions to guard against future currency fluctuations which has a close proximity to the business of the assessee. On the other hand, if it is treated as stock /shares, such transactions will not be treated as speculative transactions if the transaction is carried out through a recognized stock exchange. The argument of the Revenue is that, if the transactions are made though banking sectors, then the same will fall within the scope of speculative transactions. This argument appears to be absurd and illogical because both Recognized Stock Exchange and Nationalized Banks are either Government regulatory body or extended arm of the Government. Further the characteristic of the currency and stock/shares are not the same and therefore, currency cannot be held as stock or shares.
The loss incurred by the assessee on its derivative transactions shall be allowed to be set off from the business income of the assessee by treating the same as business loss and not loss due to speculation as held by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1048 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) - income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined under sec. 115JB - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] has been pleased to hold that where the income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined by legal fiction, namely, the book profits under sec. 115JB of the Act and the income of the assessee is assessed under sec. 115JB of the Act and not under the normal provisions, the tax is paid on the income assessed under sec. 115JB of the Act, concealment of income would have no role to play and would not lead to tax evasion, therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of the disallowances or additions made under the regular provisions.
Thus we hold that the Learned CIT(Appeals) in the present case has rightly deleted the penalty levied on the basis of assessment framed under normal provisions keeping in mind that income computed in accordance with the normal procedure is less than the income determined under sec. 115JB of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1047 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s.2(22)(e) for deemed dividend - CIT(A) deleted the addition - advance received from M/s.Giriraj Developers Pvt. Ltd. as unsecured loan - Held that:- CIT(A) having considered the submission on behalf of assessee observed that as per CBDT's Circular No.495 dated 22.09.1987 i.e. Explanatory Notes on provisions of Finance Act, 1987, payment of any kind received by assessee is to be taxed as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the hands of concern received in the payment and not the shareholder. ITAT Special Bench in case of Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. (2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E ) held that such deemed dividend is to be assessed only in the hands of shareholder and not the borrowing concern in which such shareholder is a member or partner having substantial interest. In view of above addition u/s. 2(22)(e) was directed to be deleted in the hands of assessee. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition u/s 41(1) on account of cessation of liabilities - CIT(A) deltd the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) held that merely because of lapse of period of three years, it cannot be said that liabilities had ceased or were remitted. Assessee is liable to pay certain amounts and liability. Once assessee recognize this as its liability, it does not cease to be its liability. Provisions of limitations are not applicable to the person liable for making payment. Under the facts and circumstances, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1045 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition being the 1/3rd share of the appellant in the long term capital gain on sale of ancestral agricultural land - adoption of the value of the land as determined by the Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) or accepting the jantri rate prescribed for the area specially in view of the urbanization of the said area undertaken by the State Authorities - Held that:- We find that section 50C(2) provides that where the assessee claimed before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under subsection (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property, on the date of transfer, the AO may refer the valuation of the capital asset to the valuation officer, in such a situation, the lower of value determined by the departmental valuation officer and stamp duty valuation officer shall be considered as consideration accruing to the assessee. Since it has not been disputed by the DR that the value of the property determined by the DVO was lower than the value determined by the stamp duty valuation officer, therefore, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to adopt the value determined by the departmental valuation officer, as sale consideration of the property for computing the capital gains in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1043 - ITAT BANGLORE
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional issue and can be raised at any stage of proceedings. In the present case, validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 had been raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) and also raised before the Tribunal. It is open to the assessee to urge the different facets of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings and it cannot be confined only to that facet which was raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals). The decision cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly lay down the proposition that legal question can be raised at the stage of appeal, even without a ground being urged in the grounds of appeal. The decision in the case of Sankeshwar Printer Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (11) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court binding on this Tribunal is therefore directly applicable to the present case.
As far as the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tollaram Hassomal (2006 (3) TMI 136 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court ) is concerned, it is not the decision of jurisdictional High Court and is contrary to the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court viz., Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and also contrary to the decision of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court ). We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in this miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue and accordingly the same is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
