|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 224 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Fringe benefit tax The AO opined that expenditure incurred towards maintenance of residential quarters provided to its employees on rental basis constituted fringe benefit tax and tax was levied at 30% of the maintenance expenditure on the employer - Held that:- for the reason that the charge under Chapter XII-H of the Act is on the value of the fringe benefit extended by an employer to its employees, unless such fringe benefits enjoyed in the hands of the employee is quantified, there is no question of leaving fringe benefit tax on the employer at 30% of the tax levied and enjoyed by the employer appeal of revenue dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 223 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Validity of revisionary powers exercised by CIT u/s 263 assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IC in respect of income derived from assembly of colour TV which was claimed to be "manufacturing activity" - CIT dis-allowed deduction on ground that no manufacturing activity is carried on Held that:- Tribunal while holding that exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner was not called for, upheld the view that producing of TV sets by purchasing items like cabinet, chassis, IC picture tube could be held to be manufacturing. Moreover, High Court in various cases have held that when a new and different article emerges having distinctive name, character and use, the process could be held to be manufacturing - order of the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 222 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Validity of revisionary powers exercised by CIT u/s 263 exemption u/s 54F for LTCG on sale of shares granted by A.O. shares purchased on 21.04.2000 for ₹ 19,536 sold on 02.05.2001 for ₹ 6,36,640 increased price of more than 30 times in one year CIT suo-moto assumed jurisdiction on ground that AO failed to make any enquiry while accepting genuineness of the share transaction Tribunal set aside order of CIT - Reference to Larger bench - Held that:-An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. Non-application of mind and omission to follow natural justice is in same category and are not beyond the scope of Section 263. Assumption of jurisdiction by CIT is justified. See CIT vs Daga Entrade P. Ltd (2009 (2) TMI 431 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court) Decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2012 (4) TMI 218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business expenditure Settlement charges and legal expenses - assessee owning and conducting hotel handed over bar & restaurant to conductor against payment of royalty dispute arose between assessee and conductor - settlement charges and legal expenses incurred for getting a Consent Decree from the High Court - Held that:- Tribunal order of allowing such expenditure is upheld since payment was made for resolving disputes and removing the hindrance which was caused in the management and conducting of the restaurant. The conductor was a bare licensee and had no interest by way of tenancy or otherwise in respect of the premises. Consequently, payment was in true sense the revenue expenditure Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 217 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Petition for grant of interim stay Demand imposed under order framed u/s 143(3) application filed for providing interim stay rejected by Adl CIT and stay petition rejected by CIT garnishee notice issued u/s 226(3) Held that:- Mere fact that appeal has been filed is no ground for granting stay particularly when the petitioner- assessee has sound financial position. Huge amount of arrears of tax if not paid would unnecessarily result in the payment of interest by a public body like the assessee-petitioner. No infirmity found in the order Petition dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 216 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition made on account of Unexplained investment in the property - Appeal by revenue that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by attracting the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act,1961, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the AO - assessee filed return claiming long term loss, on sale of property to be carried forward- AO stated that in respect of the Sale Deed there exists a difference of value adopted for the purpose of Stamp Duty adopted by the Sub Registrar and assessee - CIT(A) held that in the absence of any admissible evidence, valuation done by stamp duty authorities could not be taken as actual sale consideration and the value shown in the sale deed has to be accepted as held in the case of CIT v. Chandni Bhuchar 2010 (1) TMI 502 - Punjab and Haryana High Court Held that:- the CIT(A) misapplied the ratio of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT v. Chandni Bhuchar, as the same has been rendered, in the context of a Purchaser, whereas the present appellant is a 'Seller', which squarely falls u/s 50C of the Act - the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are not legally and factually tenable - the deeming fiction created u/s 50C of the Act, for the purpose of Section 48 of the Act, regarding full value of consideration received or accrued to the seller, cannot be extended to the provisions of Section 69 of the Act, in the case of a purchaser - the issue is restored to the file of the AO, to frame the assessment afresh, after obtaining the valuation report - the provision of Section 50C(2) of the Act, stipulates necessary conditions, for the purpose of making a reference to the Valuation Officer, by the AO - appeal of the revenue allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 215 - ITAT INDORE
Appeal by assessee profit on 'sale of ships' is not an income derived from the activities of a tonnage tax company referred to in Section 115 V and not to be include in the "Book Profit and to be excluded in determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB of Income Tax Act - Assessee contented that assessee company was carrying on only one activity of operation of ships and therefore entire income relating to ships as recorded in the profit & loss account was to be taken as profit derived from the activities of tonnage tax company and the same was to be reduced from the book profit for the purpose of sec.115JB Held that:- assessee has contended that the profits on sale of old ships are covered by clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 115VI which is liable to be rejected as the profits from core activities as referred to in sub-section (2) forms part of a shipping income of a tonnage tax company and as per clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 115VI, core activities of a tonnage tax company mean, inter alia, its activities from operating qualifying ships. In our opinion, the activity of sale of old ships cannot be regarded as an activity from operating qualifying ships - against assessee. income from sale of ship is not a capital receipt which has to be included while computing the book profit u/s 115JB as per decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India) Ltd. [2005] 4 SOT 376 (MUM)." - assessee submitted that profits on a sale of old ship are nothing but a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee and since the profit from such sale is chargeable to tax as capital gains u/s 50, the provisions of section 115JB are not attracted to such profit revenue contented that what is to be excluded for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB has been specifically provided in Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) and the same does not cover capital gain or capital receipt relied on the decision of Hyderabad Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rain Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT- 2010 - TMI - 203366 - ITAT HYDERABAD Held that:- the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal at Hyderabad in the case of Rain Commodities Ltd. (supra) that the provisions of section 115JB have an overriding effect upon other provisions of the Act and, therefore, the method of computation of book profit provided in the Explanation to section 115JB should be followed while computing the book profit and the normal provisions of computation of profit under any head of the Act shall not be applicable in favour of revenue.
-
2012 (4) TMI 214 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Main object of the Assessee is to promote sports and athletic activities - AO denied the exemption claimed under Section 11 treating the Assessee as a mutual concern and the facilities for the promotion of sports are provided to a limited group of people, being the members of the club - Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the promotion of sports and games fell within the purview of Section 2 (15) since it constituted an advancement of any other object of general pubic utility and directed AO to grant exemption u/s 11 - revenue appeals against the CIT(A) - Held that:- the fact that the membership of the club is open to a section of the community doesn't mean that the club has been constituted for the advancement of any other object of general public utility - AO did not have an occasion to consider the application of the funds as per Section 11, since he had come to the conclusion that the Assessee does not fulfill the charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15) hence remit the proceedings back to the AO to determine whether the requirements of Section 11 have been duly fulfilled as regards the application of the funds - Appeal of revenue disposed off as the Assessee is a Charitable Institution
-
2012 (4) TMI 213 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity and legality of appeal - Survey - During the survey, it was noticed that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 7,55,85,800/- for the assessment year 2006-07, and Rs. 6,46,86,000/- for the assessment year 2007-08 towards the earth filling charges in Kasavanahalli Project - Assessing Authority doubted the incurring of these expenses, the matter was referred to the District Valuation Officer to find out the actual costs of developmental expenses incurred - learned counsel for the Revenue contended that once the admitted tax liability is not paid, the appeal preferred is not maintainable and the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal - If the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it it upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in, and exercisable by, the appellant - . As is clear from Clause (b) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act in all cases falling under Sub-Section (4) of Section 249, no discretion is vested with the Appellate Authority - once the conduct of the assessee is not such as to disentitle him to exercise his right of appeal by obeying the law, that is by depositing the admitted tax liability, the Appellate Authority should be liberal in entertaining these applications and hear the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law - Appeal is dismissed
-
2012 (4) TMI 212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessee disclosed the claim made for excise duty refund credited to the profit and loss account as miscellaneous receipts by original as well as the revised returns - such amount was neither received nor accrued to the appellant company and the same cannot be included in the total income - the assessing officer rectified the order and reduced the claim under Section 32AB as against the original claim - tribunal passed the order that the assessing officer had in the guise of rectifying an arithmetical mistake sought to rectify a debatable question of law and re-calculation of the eligible profit under Section 32AB by deleting the expected return of customs duty, which was not included in the computation of income is an error rectifiable under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act -Revenue filed the appeal that Appellate Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, is expected to give reasons supporting its finding - Held that :- the Appellate Tribunal should have considered the materials placed on either side and have independently applying its mind should have come to its own conclusion as to whether any mistake had crept in the the order of the assessing authority or it is a debatable question - the order of the Tribunal is set aside - matter is remitted back to the ITAT to decide the issue within a period of six months - Appeal of revenue allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 211 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty under section 271D and 271E - AO noticed that the assessee has accepted and repaid loan in cash violating section 269SS and 269T - assessee contented that penalty is not leviable when assessee was having reasonable cause as per section 273B - Held that :- It was explained by the assessee before the Revenue authorities that the business of the assessee was such in nature where the expenses have to be incurred in cash immediately whereas the collection of hire charges received after sometime - we find that the expenditure and repayment of temporary loan in cash from the relatives and friends each amounting below Rs. 20,000/- was in accordance with commercial expediency of assessee's business as the nature of business of the assessee is such - as reasonable cause has been proved no penalty will be livable - appeal of assess allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 210 - ITAT JAIPUR
Non deduction of TDS on the interest paid by the assessee bank to Rajasthan Rural Road Development Agency (RRRDA)- proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) - AO levied interest and penalty - CIT (A) allowed the appeal on merit and was not liable to deduct tax - further appeal Department is challenging that assessee was not liable to deduct tax whereas assessee has challenged the legal ground raised that Additional CIT was not empowered to direct TDS ITO to pass order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) as rejected by ld. CIT (A) - assessee contented that the interest accrued on the funds was not liable to be taxed in the hands of the society as the interest was accrued on account of Ministry of Rural Development and a Notification under section 194A( 3)(iii)(f) was also issued by the Central Government by which various Agencies/Societies were exempted from deducting tax - Held that:- the interest income under consideration is belonging to the Ministry of Road Development / Central Government only, as clearly stipulated in the accounts manual making all arguments of the AO irrelevant, unwarranted and insignificant - provision of TDS sections are not applicable on project funds released by the central government and ownership of interest income belongs to Ministry of Road Development/ Central Government and therefore TDS is not required to be deducted u/s 196 - u/s 194A(3)(iii)(f) any income credited or paid to an institution, association or body which the Central Government notify in the Official Gazette is not liable of deduction of tax at source - rejected the grounds of appeal of the department.
-
2012 (4) TMI 209 - ITAT CHENNAI
Lump sum payment received on sale of software - assessee was giving services to various clients all over the world for development of Balance Score Card (BSC) project - A.O. treated it as royalty under Article 12 of Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) between India and Singapore - assessee contented that the amounts received were business profits in view of Article 7 DTA - assessee argue that it did not have any permanent establishment in India and that supply of software and consultancy services were interdependent insofar as development of BSC was concerned - assessee never parted with possession or control over the rights in such software - Held that:- the software used by the assessee cannot be considered independent, but, only as a part of the service rendered by the assessee to its clients with regard to the development of BSC - by means of the Balance Score Card system developed by the assessee, the clients were getting an advantage which went much beyond the period of agreement between the assessee and its clients - assesse made available technical knowledge for meeting the long term targets of the clients and the benefits ran well into the future - the Balance Score Card prepared for each client and system of filling data in such BSC on a continual basis depended on the needs of each client - that the fees received for designing of the management tool called Balance Score Card will definitely fall within the definition of "fees for technical services" as given under sub-clause (iv) of Article 12 of DTA between India and Singapore - A.O. was justified in treating the amount received by the assessee from its clients as income taxable in India in accordance with DTA between India and Singapore - Appeal of assessee dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 207 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Business loss - loss on sale of shares - genuine transaction or shame transaction - held that:- the transactions have been undertaken in the normal course of business and since the client has refused to take delivery of the shares, the resultant loss incurred by the assessee-company for the sale of the said shares, is required to be allowed as deduction from the business income. -
Speculation loss as per Explanation to section 73 - A.O. stated that assessee's business income during the year consisted of brokerage, the loss incurred in purchase and sale of the above shares should be as speculation loss - assessee contented that transaction of purchases and sale of shares resulting in loss do not pertain to the assessee but pertains to the clients and as per Section 73 of the Act it is applicable only if the transactions are pertaining to the assessee in whose case the same are intended to be applied - Held that:- the assessee-company is not engaged in the business of carrying out purchase and sale of shares for its own profit or loss. The above fact is evident from the balance sheet of the company - The said loss being duly supported by documentary evidences and being genuine delivery based loss, the same cannot be treated as speculative loss.
-
2012 (4) TMI 206 - ITAT MUMBAI
India-US DTAA - Tax on interest on refund of income tax - AO applied 40% rate of tax - Held that:- the use of the expression "attributable to" in the Indo-USA DTAA has therefore to be understood either as equal to "effectively connected" or as having a narrower meaning than the word "effectively connected" - the said technical explanation is in the context of attribution of profits of the PE and is relevant to taxation of an Indian enterprise having PE in USA - the case of the Assessee would stand squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd. 2011 -TMI - 210052 - ITAT, DELHI -- the interest income on income tax refund is to be charged to tax only under Article 11 (2) of the Indo-USA DTAA and not under Article 11(5) thereof - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 205 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessee was employed with UNICEF - residing outside India and returning to India on his superannuation remitted the salary in India in foreign exchange amount had been invested mainly in bank deposits - assessee filed return of income claiming tax benefit under Section 115 E and the AO found returns were filed under section 115H where the assessee has not satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements under Chapter XIIA of the Income Tax Act - AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 revenue stated that the assessee is a "Resident" as mentioned in the return, hence is not entitled to the concession rate of tax under Section 115 E/115 H - Held that:- re-assessment was validly re-opened as held in favour of the Revenue in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007 -TMI - 6563 - SUPREME Court) - the assessee had been a 'Non-Resident" for 12 years prior to his return to India - He has been in India only for 323 days during the previous seven years preceding the assessment year - the status of the assessee is "Not Ordinarily Resident" and the real status of the assessee cannot be denied merely the assessee made a wrong declaration when he satisfied all the conditions - is entitled to the benefit of Section 115 E
-
2012 (4) TMI 204 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Search & seizure documents seized one of the document contained working of interest @ 3% per month on total sum of Rs.3 lac - assessee contended that said documents belonged to his father who in turn denied knowledge of papers addition made for principal and interest on presumption that assessee was involved in the business of financing Held that:- Findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence on record and any reasonable individual, having regard to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, would arrive at the same conclusion. The aforesaid finding cannot be said to be one based on 'No Evidence' nor can that finding be described as a perverse finding of fact Decided against the assessee
-
2012 (4) TMI 195 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction u/s 54EC LTCG - sale of residential property on 22.10.2007 - deduction u/s 54EC allowed in respect of investment of ₹ 50 lacs made in REC bonds on 31.12.2007 - denial of deduction in respect of investment of ₹ 50 lacs in NHAI bonds made on 26.05.2008 on ground of it being made beyond the prescribed time of 6 months assessee contended that subscription to the eligible investment was closed during the period 01-04-2008 to 26-05-2008 - investment of more than ₹ 50 lacs cannot be made in one F.Y. Held that:- Proviso to Section 54EC restricts investment of more than ₹ 50 lacs in a F.Y.. However, if assessee transfers his capital asset after 30th September of the F.Y. he gets an opportunity to make an investment of ₹ 50 lakhs each in two different F.Ys. In present case, assessee could have invested in eligible investment within six months (on or before 21-04-2008) involving two financial years. Therefore, assessee is entitled to get exemption upto ₹ 1 Crore if investment is made upto 21.04.2008. Further investment of ₹ 50 lacs is made by assessee on 26.05.2008. It is undisputed that subscription to the eligible investment was closed during the period 01-04-2008 to 26-05-2008 thus assessee was prevented by sufficient cause which was beyond his control in making investment in these Bonds within the time prescribed. Therefore, investments made by the assessee on 26-05-2008 even though beyond six months is eligible for exemption Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 194 - ITAT COCHIN
Hiring of vehicles to be used for loading & unloading and transportation of products assessee contended it to be composite contract and applicability of Section 194C to it alternative contention of the assessee that section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only in case of non deduction of tax and not for short deduction of tax - Held that:- Agreement clearly shows that the assessee is taking vehicles on hire for use of the same for particular hours in his business activity. The agreement does not require the contractee to do any work at all. Merely because the words "loading & unloading" are used in the contract, no one can presume that the contractee has to do any work on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has to make use of the equipment/vehicle made available on payment of hire for his use. Therefore, it is hire of equipment/vehicle simplicitor and Section 194I would be applicable Decided against the assessee. Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on short deduction of tax Held that:- Since this issue was not considered by the lower authorities. Hence, matter is remitted back to the file of the A.O. for the limited pupose of determining whether short deduction of tax would attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)
-
2012 (4) TMI 193 - ITAT DELHI
Taxability in India of income earned in a foreign countries covered under DTAA, by the assessee who is a resident of India - assessee engaged in providing full range of consultancy, design and engineering services in all fields of telecommunication in India as well as abroad Held that:- If, in the DTAA, an item of income is "may be taxed" in state of source and nothing is mentioned about taxing right of state of residence in convention itself, then state of residence is not precluded from taxing such income and can tax such income using inherent right of state of residence to tax such global income of its resident. Only in the case of phrase "shall be taxed only" used, then only the state of residence is precluded from taxing it. In such cases, where the phrase "may be taxed" used, the state of residence has been given its inherent right to tax. Also, in case of CIT vs PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar (2007 - TMI - 40400 - Supreme Court) it was held that state of residence has right to tax global income of its resident. Since, Residence based taxation is followed in India rendering residents to be taxed on their global income, and non-residents to be taxed only on income sourced inside the country. Therefore, assessee is liable to be taxed on its global income Decided against the assessee. Validity of reopening of assessment beyond 4 years from the end of relevant A.Y excessive deduction u/s 80HHC & 80HHB assessee contending change of opinion Held that:- As per Explanation (2)(c)(iv) to section 147, if excessive loss, depreciation allowance or any other allowance under the act has been computed, it shall be deemed to be an escapement of income. In present case, indirect expenses attributable to the exported trading goods were understated. There was no discussion about deduction u/s 80HHC & 80HHB in assessment order and even there was no working of attributable indirect expenses in Form No. 10CCAC which was vital element for computation of deduction available to the assessee which has not been furnished by the assessee. Therefore, there was a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment. Further, existence of belief can be challenged by assessee but not the sufficiency of the reasons to belief Decided against the assessee. Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148. Deduction u/s 80HHB - dis-allowance of Rs 8 lacs - Claim of Rs 32.08 crores made and reserves made upto Rs 32 crores only Held that:- Since there is shortfall in reserves , hence conditions laid down in Section 80HHB(3)(ii) are not fulfilled. Thus, dis-allowance is upheld Decided against the assessee. Dis-allowance u/s 80HHC - assessee contending that it is maintaining separate books of account for export business, therefore, indirect expenses relatable to the export goods need not to be worked out as per provisions of section 80HHC(3) Held that:- Administrative expenses will have to be apportioned in the ratio of export turnover to total turnover which have relations with the export business Decided against the assessee.
....
|
