|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 814 Records
-
2015 (9) TMI 1296 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of expenses out of the improvement expenses to the property - CIT(A) restricted disallowance to 50% - Held that:- The proprietor of M/s Verma Associates though appeared before the AO and accepted the fact of carrying out work however, he failed to substantiate his oral statements with documentary evidence in the form of books of account. The proprietor of M/s Vinayaka Trade and Agency who supplied the Air Conditioners, on one hand admitted to have sold the Air Conditioners to the assessee but on the other hand stated that he did not install the same. Further, the assessee has not claimed any separate expenses on installation of Air conditioners. M/s Nutech Engineering Corporation did not comply with the summon issued by the AO. On perusal of the Bill of M/s M/s Nutech Engineering Corporation which is filed at page no. 104 of paper book of the assesee, it is seen that 250 number of plastic moulded furniture items have been supplied but exact nature of item is not mentioned. Further the registered sale agreement though contains the clause that sale price of the said property include the cost and expenses for fitting and all other facilities provided in the said property, however, there is no specific mention that plastic moulded furniture was part of any fittings. Moreover, the buyer has specifically denied to receive any Air Conditioner or fittings. In view of the above findings, the action of the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 50% of its improvement expenses does not seem proper. In view of the above, in the interest of natural justice,find it appropriate to send the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to examine the issue alongwith expenses on repair, air conditioned plastic moulded further after giving due opportunity to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1295 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition of refund of flat booked as unexplained sources of the appellant - addition on unexplained credits - Held that:- Allotment letters etc. from the society were not easily available because the same were old records and i.e. why the same could not be filed before CIT(A). He made a prayer that since documents go the route of the addition, therefore, the same may be admitted.We are of the opinion that these documents go to the route of the matter and therefore in the interest of justice the same should be admitted as additional evidence. However, at the same time we do not find any force for admission of additional evidence in respect of documents N-5 i.e. gift deed because no particular reason has been given before us why this gift deed could not be obtained earlier. Therefore, we admit to the documents. Thus we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to reexamine the issue in the light of the additional evidence and then decide the same in accordance with law
Addition of deposits in bank during the year as unexplained credits - Held that:- Surplus cash is available with the assessee. The sum of ₹ 10,000/- can be said to be easily available from withdrawals of ₹ 2,85,000/- on 22.5.2006. Similarly, deposit of ₹ 50,000/- on 7.2.2007 can be easily explained from the withdrawals of ₹ 50,000/- on 15.1.2007. Therefore, in our opinion this addition is required to be deleted and accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the same.
Addition on deposits in bank during the year as unexplained credits - Held that:- CIT(A) has not given detailed reasons for rejection of these two items. Once the confirmation was filed and if Assessing Officer had any doubt he could have asked for further information. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file for reexamination of these entries. The Assessing Officer should decide the issue in respect of these two entries after obtaining confirmation etc. in accordance with law.
Addition on deposits in bank during the year as unexplained credits - assessee submitted that CIT(A) has already accepted the another gift of ₹ 5 lakhs from the sister then he should have accepted this gift also. - Held that:- We do not find any force in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. First of all, we have already rejected the admission of additional evidence in the form of gift deed in respect of this gift deed because Ld. Counsel could not give any reason why the same was not produced before Assessing Officer or CIT(A). Secondly, wherever the assessee has filed proper certificate, Ld. CIT(A) has already deleted the addition and if no confirmation is available for a particular gift, then same cannot be allowed simply because the other gifts have been accepted. Therefore, we upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this respect and confirm the addition
-
2015 (9) TMI 1294 - ITAT DELHI
Revision u/s 263 - whether the CIT in exercise of his powers vested under Section 263 can revise that reassessment order with the intention of bringing into the tax some other items which do not form part of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice under Section 148? - Held that:- The identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Software Consultants, [2012 (2) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court after considering the ratio laid down in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] and CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh, [2008 (5) TMI 200 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ] held that when no addition was made regarding the item in respect of which reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment, the Commissioner could not exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in order to bring to tax other items of additions.
Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above case, we hold that in the present case also the Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in exercising the power under Section 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1293 - ITAT DELHI
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - appellant tendered an explanation saying that the additions were as a result of bona fide mistaken occurred at the time of preparation of return of income - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that the appellant had no intention of concealing the particular of the claim made, having regard to the fact that full disclosure was made of the items written off in the schedule XI financial statement, and the appellant on its own before the detection of the same by the Assessing Officer had offered the same to tax. This goes to prove that mistake is bona fide and therefore no penalty can be levied under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we also place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers (P.) Ltd., [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT]
Thus we hold that no penalty is leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in full. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1292 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the levy - revision of computation of income - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee wrongly computed the short term capital gain to be carried forward due to some wrong formula entered into computation sheet used to work out the short term/long term capital gains / loss and when the mistake came to his notice, the assessee corrected the figures and filed the revised details of short term capital loss before the AO vide letter dated 24.10.2011, much before the completion of the assessment on 22.12.2011. The AO accepted the figures of short term capital loss to be carried forward at ₹ 30,27,277/- in place of the earlier claimed loss of ₹ 62,09,653/-. However, he levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the aforesaid narrated facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the intention of the assessee was not mala fide because he himself corrected the figure, revised the computation and paid the due tax on the income of the succeeding years because the claim of carried forward of short term capital loss had affected the future tax liability. See Price Water House Coopers (P.) Ltd., [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT]
Thus we hold that no penalty is leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in full. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1291 - ITAT BANGALORE
Proceedings u/s 153C - rework the addition after giving credit for proportionate expenditure on account of pending works for this year and also giving credit for appellant’s returned income on account of sale of flats as directed by CIT(A) - Held that:- We have considered the submissions of the learned DR. We find that additional cost on incomplete project, based on photograph, may not be acceptable. No reasons were adduced for not filing the evidence filed before CIT(A),before the AO. We, therefore, direct the AO to rework the addition if any, after careful consideration of cost records from the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, directed to submit the factual information and proper cost records to the Assessing Officer, not merely the photograph, so as to substantiate its claim. The assessee is also given liberty to file proper estimation from registered valuer. To carry out the above direction of the bench, the entire issue is restored on the file of the AO - Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purpose.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1290 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of fees under section 234E - intimation issued under section 200A in respect of processing of TDS for the Assessment Year 2013-14 - Held that:- The issue in appeal is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT [2015 (6) TMI 437 - ITAT AMRITSAR]. No dispute that the provisions accepting levy of late filing fees under section 234E have indeed been brought to the statute w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 and the impugned order was passed much before that date.
In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, I hereby delete the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act by way of impugned intimation issued - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1289 - ITAT CHENNAI
Taxation on interest whether interest income received by the assessee has already been transferred to the beneficiaries? - Held that:- We find it appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh, particularly, whether, the assessee has transferred the income earned by it to the beneficiaries or not? If the very same income is taxed in the hands of beneficiaries, then it cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Further, if the assessee has not able to produce relevant details to satisfy the Assessing Officer that the interest amount is transferred to the beneficiaries, the same amount may be taxed in the hands of the assessee as its income in accordance with law. We further direct the Assessing Officer that if the assessee has incurred any expenditure relating to earning the interest income, the same may be allowed as business expenditure, if the activity of the assessee is treated as business activity. Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1288 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Rectification of mistake - claim for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) - Held that:- The issue before the Tribunal was whether the provisions for bad and doubtful debts can be allowed under section 36(1)(vii) on the basis of approval of the Board of Directors of the assessee-company. The Tribunal has examined this issue in para 9 of its order and has given a categorical finding that the assessee has claimed deduction for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act; whereas this section deals with only actual claim of deduction. Since the Tribunal has taken into account all the arguments of the assessee while adjudicating the issue, we find no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts cannot be claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as it deals with actual claim of deduction. The Tribunal has also taken cognizance of the provisions of clause (vii)(a) of section 36(1) of the Act, which deals with the issue of claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the Scheduled Bank, non-Scheduled Bank or Corporation Bank, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has not dealt with the issue in the light of assessee’s contentions. Since the Tribunal has taken a particular view in the light of assessee’s contentions, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification.
No merit in this Miscellaneous Application of the assessee, as no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal is pointed out. The ld. counsel for the assessee has tried to dispute the findings of the Tribunal and seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act and we accordingly reject the Miscellaneous Application. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1287 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Held that:- Making additions and partly confirming them we find that both authorities have not passed speaking orders and moreover the necessary clarifications stated by assessee were not properly examined. Assessing Officer has also completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore in view of the substantial justice we are of the view that appeals confirming the assessment and confirming the penalties needs to be looked after again by AO. The AO will provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1286 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - addition on account of adjustment u/s.145A with regard to difference in closing stock and unutilized MODVAT, disallowance of foreign travel expenses amounting to ₹ 1,35,750/- and disallowance to bonus payment to labourers - Held that:- So far as the imposition of penalty for addition made on account of adjustment u/s.145A of the Act and foreign travel expenses are concerned, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has deleted the penalty in assessee's own case for AY 2004-05.[2011 (12) TMI 517 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]
In respect of addition made on account of disallowance of bonus payment to labourers in quantum appeal, this Coordinate Bench for AY 2005-06 [2012 (11) TMI 1077 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] had restored this issue back to the file of AO for de novo assessment. Under these facts, the penalty levied on this amount does not survive. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1285 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - bonafide belief - CIT(A) deleted penalty in part - Held that:- CIT(A having been satisfied to quash penalty in two out of the 7 years infact should have quashed the penalty proceedings in all the years. When the admitted facts are that the seized documents were common to all the group cases numbering 120 in all and at the relevant point of time the cases were partially in Nagpur and partially in Delhi and the counsels infact were facilitating in the process of centralizing the entire group of cases at Delhi from Nagpur the occasion to willfully default does not arise. In fact there is more than sufficient evidence on record to hold that the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) in these admitted facts was not warranted. We have seen that the assessments are concluded u/s 143(3)/153A thereby meaning that shortcoming if any was made good in the assessment proceedings. Thus we quash the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for each of the years and allow the appeals of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1284 - ITAT DELHI
Rejection of declared valuation of closing stock - Held that:- Find considerable cogency in the assessee's contention mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A) order that all the purchases and direct expenses under different heads and also sales were verifiable and supported by documentary evidence. The correctness of the declared profit as reflected in the Trading account was well proved and substantiated by the method of accounting regularly employed was not disputed. Thus on facts and in law there was no warrant and legal justification for rejection of declared valuation of closing stock. Find force in the assessee's contention that AO was wrong to hold that the closing stock was not correctly valued on the basis of which by applying FIFO method he made an addition of ₹ 2,11,326/- on the basis of difference in value of unsold closing stock by that method and also rejected the account books which were duly audited by applying the provisions of section 145 on the sole basis of difference in unsold closing stock. Further, the AO has violated the provisions of law by adopting the FIFO method on his own without pointing out the defects in LIFO method which is a prescribed method without pin pointing the defects in the method constantly applied by the assessee on the basis of which if proper profit cannot be deduced. AO has wrongly applied the FIFO method and wrongly rejected the LIFO method as applied by the assessee - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of expenditure under the head Job Work - Held that:- Expenditure on job work was genuinely incurred in the course of business. Such expenditure being incidental and relating to job work receipts did not warrant any disallowance as the same had been claimed in the preceding as well as succeeding years, which was accepted by the Department, therefore, the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Decided against revenue.
Expenditure under the head Trade Tax on purchases disallowed - Held that:- As regards addition incurred under the head trade tax on purchase was genuinely incurred in the course of business, hence, the same is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, delete the same. - Decided against revenue.
Carry forward of loss not claimed by the assessee in computation of income - assessee has submitted this was a mistake - Held that:- The assessee made application u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act which has not been disposed off by the AO. As find that Ld. CIT(A) in his finding has observed that this carry forward of loss cannot be allowed at appellate stage because the same was not claimed in the assessment and this matter is still pending u/s. 154 before the AO, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said ground, which is in my opinion is contrary to the law and principle of natural justice. In view of above, in the interest of justice,direct the AO to decide the Application u/s. 154 filed by the assessee first and then decide the issue in dispute by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1283 - ITAT CHENNAI
Claim of deduction u/s 80IB denied - treatment to both the units as one and the same - Held that:- Merely because the second unit was shown as branch unit or expanded unit, it cannot be said that the branch unit is not an independent unit. In fact, the injection moulded plastic components are manufactured at 55-D, SIDCO Industrial unit. This method is not used in the main unit. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that both units are functioning differently even though the end product in both units are plastic components. Therefore, both the authorities below are not justified in treating both the units as same unit. Merely because one unit is treated as branch unit for administrative convenience, it does not mean that both the units are one and the same. In view of the above, both the authorities below are not justified in treating both the units as one and the same. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that both main and branch unit are separate and independent one, therefore, the authorities below are not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1282 - ITAT CHENNAI
Claim of the assessee u/s 10B - claim of the assessee was rejected by AO on the ground that the approval from the Board as required under the provisions of section 10B was not obtained - assessee made an alternative claim u/s 10A - only contention of the ld. DR is that the assessee cannot make a claim unless the same was made in the return of income - Held that:- As gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Goetze (India) Ltd (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court) wherein held that for the purpose of making a claim, the same has to be made in the return of income. In the very same judgment, the Apex Court found that however, it will not deprive the authority of the Tribunal to entertain additional ground or alternative ground. Therefore, when the assessee is eligible for alternative claim u/s 10A, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Setting off of losses of non 10B unit against profits of 10B unit - Held that:- The Special Bench of this Tribunal in Scientific Atlanda Tec P. Ltd.(2010 (2) TMI 658 - ITAT, CHENNAI) found that the brought forward losses and depreciation need not be set off for computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Exclusion of foreign travel and communication expenses from the export turnover - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the foreign travel and communication expenses were included in the total turnover. Once it was included in the total turnover, in view of the decision of Special Bench in Sak Soft Ltd. (2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D), the same are also to be included in the export turnover. The Special Bench in Sak Soft Ltd found that the denominator and numerator shall be of the same factor. The CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authority - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance u/s 14A - AO admittedly, disallowed 10% of the dividend income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the same. Asseessee submitted that 2% of the dividend income may be disallowed - Held that:- The Assessing OfficerAssessing Officer is directed to disallow 2% of the dividend income as expenditure relatable to exempted income. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to disallow only 2% instead of 10% of the dividend income. - Decided partly in favour of revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1248 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - accumulation of income upto 25% - Held that:- where CIT (Appeals) has gone wrong is that he ignored the provision which entitled the assessee to exercise such an option only to the extent of 25%. In the instant case, the assessee had exercised the option of setting apart an amount of ₹ 32 lacs which was more than 25%. The total income was ₹ 99,41,221/- and 25% thereof would be ₹ 24,85,305/-. Thus, the entire amount of ₹ 32 lacs could not have been allowed as directed. This aspect has not been noticed by the High Court as well. No further amount could be allowed as deduction and we do not understand as to how the entire income is treated as exempted from income tax.
We, accordingly, allow this appeal by setting aside the order of the High Court and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income in accordance with this judgment.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1247 - SUPREME COURT
Interest earned from Fixed Deposits before business actually commenced - 'interest from other sources' OR 'business income' - Held that:- We are not going into this issue inasmuch as this appeal can be disposed of on the ground that consistency does demand that there being no change in circumstances, the income for the year 1993-94 would also have to be treated business income as for the previous three years. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1246 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dismissal of application for additional evidence as well as the appeal - disallowance of development expenses - Held that:- The appellant could have easily told the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Ludhiana that the vouchers were in possession of another Director who had left the company. The explanation appears to have manufactured for the purpose of furnishing an explanation. The vouchers are not signed by and on behalf of the assessee and there is no evidence as to whether these payments were made for business purposes etc and, therefore, even otherwise, irrelevant. The substantial question of law based upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tek Ram (dead through LRs) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2013 (8) TMI 459 - SUPREME COURT ] is meaningless as documents produced by the assessee in the said case as additional evidence were found to be relevant. Reference to another judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Mukta Metal Works [2011 (2) TMI 250 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is not tenable as additional evidence produced in the aforesaid case was held to be necessary for adjudication of the pending lis. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1245 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Waiver of interest as provided under section 220 (2A) - single Judge upheld the claim of the respondent and directed him entitled to the benefit of waiver of interest for the period up to the date provided for payment of tax under the revised order and demand issued on the basis of the Tribunal's order - Held that:- Though the Commissioner has accepted that the three conditions provided for in section 220(2A) are satisfied, he has chosen to limit the benefit of waiver to a particular period. While examining the validity of that order, what is relevant to be examined is whether the reason assigned by the Commissioner for restricting waiver is valid or not. On such examination, it is seen that in March, 1996, though this Court decided the case of Narayanan (1996 (3) TMI 81 - KERALA High Court), the favourable appellate order obtained by the assessee herein in an appeal filed by them, entitling them for assessment treating the firm as a registered one, was remaining valid. That order was invalidated by the Tribunal only on 20.5.1998, in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In other words, it was only on 20.5.1998, the assessee became disentitled to assessment on the status of a registered firm.
The fact that this court has decided the issue in the case of Narayanan (supra) is of no consequence at all till 20.5.1998 when the appeal was decided by the Tribunal. This, therefore, shows that the reason which weighed with the Commissioner to restrict the benefit of waiver till March, 1996 is absolutely untenable.
It was in the aforesaid circumstances that the learned single Judge interfered with the order and directed that the assessee be given the benefit of waiver up to the date provided for payment under the revised order and demand issued on the basis of the Tribunal's order. In our view, this conclusion of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality justifying interference in appeal.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1244 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) - AO disallowed the claim by referring to the Explanation under Section 80I A (13) - ITAT deleted the penalty - Held that:- In the facts of the present case, the view taken by the ITAT that the deduction claimed was bona fide and on the basis of the certificate of the auditors appears to be a plausible one and cannot be said to be suffering from any perversity. This was not a case whether the Assessee had not disclosed the full details. It had claimed the deduction only on the basis of the report of the auditors as required by the Act.- Decided in favour of the Assessee.
............
|
