|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 300 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance of depreciation - Assets leased to Western Railways - transactions of lease were questioned by the Assessing Officer - Held that:- it is not a case, as is appearing from different clauses of the lease deed that the equipments leased will be returned back to the lessor after the expiry of the lease. Nothing has been brought to disapprove the said clauses of the lease deed by any of the authorities below - It is not proved that assessee is only a financer and is not interested in the assets and therefore, it cannot be said as full payout lease - such claim did not arise for consideration for the first time, but, is spread over to the entire period between A.Y. 1996-97 to 1999-2000. Such claim was made by the Assessee and duly granted by the Assessing Officer - Decided against Revenue.
Premium on redemption of debentures - Tribunal allowed deduction - Held that:- where the company undertakes to pay more amount than what it has borrowed, and liability to pay the excess amount undertaken to be paid by the company to fulfill its needs for borrowed money is an allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act - Following decision of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] - Decided against Revenue.
Deduction on restructuring of the term loan - Tribunal allowed deduction - Held that:- act of borrowing money was incidental to carrying on of the business, the loan obtained was not an asset or an advantage of enduring nature, the expenditure so made for securing the use of money for a certain period and it was irrelevant to consider the object with which the loan was obtained. Thus, when obtaining of a loan is not considered as an asset or an advantage of enduring nature, any expenditure incurred for reducing such loan burden or securing the borrowings, on more advantageous condition, can not be seen as resulting into a benefit of enduring nature so as to be categorized as a capital expenditure - Following decision of India Cements Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras [1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court] - Decided against Revenue.
Deduction u/s 36[1](iii) - Held that:- Department had allowed such deduction in the earlier years - when it was found that the machinery being purchased through borrowed funds was not for the purpose of new business but expansion of the existing business claim of interest was rightly held allowable - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 299 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TDS u/s 194H - TDS on amount retained by banks/credit card agencies - online transactions / credit card transactions - Held that:- banks make payments to the assessee after deducting certain fees as per the terms and conditions in the credit card and it is not a commission but a fee deducted by the banks - assessee only receives the payment form the bank/credit card companies concerned, after deduction of commission thereon, and thus, this is only in the nature of a post facto accounting and does not involve any payment or crediting of the account of the banks or any other account before such payment by the assessee.
Liability to make TDS under the said section arises only when a person acts on behalf of another person. In the case of commission retained by the credit card companies however, it cannot be said that the bank acts on behalf of the merchant establishment or that even the merchant establishment conducts the transaction for the bank. The sale made on the basis of a credit card is clearly a transaction of the merchants establishment only and the credit card company only facilitates the electronic payment, for a certain charge.
The commission retained by the credit card company is therefore in the nature of normal bank charges and not in the nature of commission/brokerage for acting on behalf of the merchant establishment - payments made to the banks on account of utilization of credit card facilities would be in the nature of bank charges and not in the nature of commission within the meaning of section 194H of the Act and hence no TDS is required to be deducted u/s 194 H of the Act - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 298 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deduction u/s 80IB - Small scale industry - Held that:- There is no condition that new definition of small scale industry is applicable to the new units only - Amount of investment has to be seen as on the last date of previous year - last date of the preceding year is 31.3.2007 and the new limit of Rs. 5.00 crore was applicable from 2.10.2006. Therefore, as on 31.3.2007 the assessee was clearly covered by the new definition - Decided against Revenue.
Capital expenditure - Disallowance of Expenditure on machines - Spare part or machine itself - Held that:- Certificate from professional state that TUP is a wearable and Breakable part and it require replacement is case of excess wear and breakage. It has got no link in the increase of capacity of Drop Hammer - Assessing Officer’s conclusion is not based upon any specialized knowledge of the production process or any thing to suggest that he spare parts were actually a machine by itself - No other material has been brought to show by the revenue that the TUP is not a spare part - Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance of interest - Interest paid at higher rate to person u/s 40A(2)(b) - CIT deleted addition - Held that:- funds borrowed from bank and financial institutions are subject to number of restrictions and are more than secure whereas money borrowed from the relatives was unsecured and generally interest rate is more in case of unsecured loans - Decided against Revenue.
Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A - Held that:- the disallowance u/s 14A is based on Rule 8D which has been noted was applicable during the year under consideration and which is in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. - Decided in favor of revenue.
Disallowance of interest on advances given for capital assets - Held that:- after 1.4.2004 if the interest expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of acquisition of capital asset then the same is not allowable. Since the advances have been made admittedly for the purpose of acquisition of capital asset i.e. land, building etc. interest incurred for acquisition of such asset is not allowable. - Decided in favor of revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 290 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Computation of G.P. rate - Rejection of books of accounts - Tribunal reduced G.P. rate by 2% without giving cogent reasons - Held that:- there was order of affirmance no detailed reasons were otherwise required to be assigned and it was observed by the learned Tribunal that as regards assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 the departmental appeals were dismissed and application of 8% profit rate was held to be reasonable and the present appeal is in respect of assessment year-1997-98 and the question decided by the learned Tribunal is one and the same - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 289 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income u/s 158BA - Block assessment - Addition on account of undisclosed income by way of FDs, Kisan Vikas Pathras - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that:- assessee had filed returns disclosing the said income along with the audit report. The Assessing Authority had passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1999-2000 and in the said order he has not pointed them as receipts. Therefore, the last date for filing returns was not yet over. As he had an opportunity to file returns disclosing the said income, it cannot be said that it constitutes undisclosed income. In fact, in the assessment order, the Department has passed a protective assessment order including the said income - Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the assessee - Decided against Revenue.
Income u/s 158BA - Block assessment - Deduction u/s 80L - Held that:- interest accrued on the said FDs cannot be held to be undisclosed income. If the principal amount is not considered as undisclosed income, the interest accrued thereon cannot be construed as undisclosed income and in the returns filed by the assessee, that income is also shown and tax is paid - benefit given to the assessee under section 80L of the Act was not challenged by the revenue before the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.
In the absence of any evidence to show that the brothers divided the income equally, as the assessee was in the complete financial management of all the assets, it was of the view that it is probable that entire agricultural income was kept in FD in his name as the ultimate beneficiaries of the same would be his brother and his son. In the light of evidence on record, it cannot be said that the said reasoning of the Tribunal is perverse and calls for interference.
-
2013 (8) TMI 288 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) - Disallowance due to non deduction of TDS - Tribunal [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) applies only to that expenditure which is payable as of 31st March and not to the expenditure which has already been paid during the year itself - Held that:- Decision of Tribunal stayed - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 287 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Notice u/s 148 - Held that:- Letter of approval from CIT does not bear any reference to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer - Assessing Officer did not agree with the audit objection and stuck to her position that she was right in law as well as in the facts while framing the original assessment and that, therefore, the audit objection should be dropped, has not been denied by the Assessing Officer though she herself filed an affidavit before this court in response to such averments made in the petition. All that she had to state was that she was surprised that the petitioner could claim access to inter-departmental correspondence which was strictly confidential in nature - Assessing Officer can form an independent opinion on an issue which may have been brought to his/her notice by the audit party and seek to reopen the assessment, provided it is the Assessing Officer's independent belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment - Therefore, notice of reassessment unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 286 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Notice u/s 148 - Notice issued after search u/s 132 - Return file before the wrong officer - Held that:- On the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner, and the intimation sent by the Department under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee discharged his tax liabilities. The Department without ever questioning filing of such returns before a wrong officer, having accepted the tax paid under such returns, now cannot be allowed to contend that such returns were filed before wrong officers who had no jurisdiction to accept the same.
When the assessee filed his returns before his ordinary Assessing Officer, primarily the Assessing Officer concerned could have either refused to accept such returns or could have transferred them before the competent authority. He not having done so, after a long period of time, it would not be open for the Department to ignore such returns contending that the same were filed before the officer who had no jurisdiction and therefore, such returns were non est. Any such attempt on the part of the Department would lead to abnormal and incongruent situation. The returns accepted by the Assessing Officer, with or without scrutiny and the assessment framed thereon would stand in eye of law.
The reasons recorded for reopening assessment are not valid. The sole ground on which the assessment is sought to be reopened under section 147 of the Act, is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 285 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Notice u/s 148 - Depreciation claimed on coal fired boiler building - Held that:- In the detailed questionnaire called for, vide notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had called for details of investment in fixed assets and not calculation as regards depreciation claimed by the petitioner - Thus, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Assessing Officer had called for details as regards depreciation claimed by the petitioner in respect of the fixed assets in general and the coal fire boiler building in particular or having raised any query in that regard - The only issue discussed therein pertains to disallowance under section 14A of the Act - So far as the assessment order is concerned, it does not reflect any application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the claim of depreciation on coal fire boiler building while framing the assessment - Since the reopening is within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the requirement of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, viz., failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for its assessment is not required to be fulfilled - Omission of the assessee to bring to the assessing authority's attention those particular items in the account books, or to particular portions of the documents which are relevant, will amount to "omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment - Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act does not appear to have formed any opinion in regard to depreciation on coal fire boiler building - It was for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Assessing Officer that it was claiming depreciation in respect thereof as under the heading "plant and machinery" and not as building. The petitioner having failed to do so cannot now contend that the assessment is sought to be reopened on a mere change of opinion - Following decisions of Malegaon Electricity Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1970 (8) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court] and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1960 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court] - Decided against assessee.
The court while considering a challenge to the reopening of assessment can always examine the existence of the belief but the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the court. On the facts emerging from the record, the court is of the view that there is sufficient material on record for the Assessing Officer to form a belief as regards escapement of income from assessment in the year under consideration in relation to the claim of depreciation in respect of building of coal fire boiler. - Decided against assessee.
Notice u/s 148 - Carry forward of depreciation - Held that:- If the reopening is sustainable on one issue, even if on the other issue the exercise of power under section 147 of the Act is not justified, it would not make render the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act invalid - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 284 - ITAT DELHI
Addition of bogus claim of consultancy charges payments - unsubstantiated payments of software development charges - repair & maintenance expenses incurred on the residence of Director - CIT(A) has restricted the additions - Held that:- The assessee has produced all proof that was necessary to support its contentions. It is rather the AO who has no proof or support in respect of his contentions in terms of the authorities as explained and stated hereinabove. The survey statement was inadmissible as evidence in the light of the decision of the supreme authorities on the point - during the subsistence of the consultancy agreement, the appellant company did not receive any complaint from M/s. LMZ Energy (India) Ltd. regarding the services provided by M/s. T & G Quality Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It may not be out of place to mention here that the appellant company received part consultancy fee from M/s. LMZ Energy (India) Ltd during the year under consideration. The documentary evidence were filed during the course of assessment proceedings to prove the genuineness of the transaction between the appellant company and M/s. T & G Quality Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd - CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and elaborate order for both the years considering each and every aspect of the matters in detail and the basis and reasoning as given by Ld. CIT(A) are found to be just and appropriate.
In the absence of any contrary material having been placed on record, there is no reason to interfere with order's of CIT - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 283 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction of additional deduction - windmill power generation - Held that:- electricity falls within the definition of sale of Goods Act, 1930 and process of generation of electricity is akin to manufacture or production of an "article" or "thing". The power generated need not necessarily be used in the production of assessee's own products namely mining and extraction of gold. The use of electricity in the manufacturing activity of the core business of the assessee is not a precondition for the grant of additional depreciation under the statue - Generation of electricity is a manufacturing activity - The assessee is involved in the manufacturing activity and fulfills the conditions as laid down under section 32(1)(iia). The Government vide Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) to include the business of generation or generation and distribution of power - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 282 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of office expenditure - Held that:- there is no agreement about indemnity of expenses as far as Simplex Sport Complex at Ranchi is concerned, which constitutes the major receipt of consultancy fee - assessee, as a businessman, has the liberty to carry on its business in the manner it thinks feasible. The expenditure having been incurred for business purposes cannot be disallowed on ipsi dixit, beyond which the revenue has not been able to make out any further case - expenditure incurred by the assessee being in the course of business has to be allowed. Besides, assessee undertakes that if any recovery of expenditure is made from Reliance or Simplex, the same would be offered to tax, whenever it is received - Following decision of CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. [1967 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] and Sasoon J. David & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [1979 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 281 - ITAT BANGALORE
Transfer pricing Adjustment u/s 92CA - TPO made adjustment as per Tribunal's order - Held that:- on a careful perusal of the order of the TPO giving effect to the directions contained in the earlier order of this Bench, it is observed that there were variations and total inconsistencies while implementing the directions of the earlier Bench - TPO was in presumption that the earlier Bench had directed to reduce sale return only while calculating CAGR and debtors without appreciating the fact that the earlier Bench had categorically held that those sales did not materialize and, thus, should be reduced from sales - TPO has arrived at the operating costs for the previous years following a new method, a clear deviation from the original order passed on 30.10.2009 and has adopted a totally a different method of calculation of cost by deducting the marketing expenses from the total cost as the marketing division was transferred to TIPL and it does not exist on the date of valuation - TPO adopted corrected method in estimation of future cash flows except that the revenues for the AY 2006-07 has to be considered and is to be taken as the base year for future projection of revenue - Suitable directions have been issued in respect of revenues only and not for the costs. The TPO had, thus, erred in mentioning that there were no specific directions given with respect to the costs of the previous years - The TPO has also erred in mentioning that current year data has to be considered for the projection of future earnings. In fact, specific direction was given, as can be seen from the earlier order that revenues for the current year i.e., 2006-07 has to be considered and is to be taken as the base year for future projections - Decided in favour of assessee.
TPO has erred in mentioning that the Marketing Division was non-existence on the date of valuation. The TPO has failed, perhaps, to properly understand that TSPL transferred intangible properties TSFL, Dubai and its marketing division to Tally India Pvt. Ltd and whole subject matter of this valuation is this transfer and the marketing division was in existence before the date of transfer. The transfer of assets and the marketing division is done simultaneously and together. Therefore at the time of transfer of asset, the marketing division was not transferred and it is wrong to assume that the transfer of marketing division has happened prior to the sale of assets - TPO cannot change the method of calculation of cost which was accepted by the earlier Bench as mentioned in the original order and also as discussed above, the assumption of TPO now as different from the original order of the TPO that Marketing division was transferred prior to transfer of assets as the fact remains that both the transfers have taken place simultaneously on 31-01- 2006.
TPO has also erred in taking the costs for only 10 months whereas the revenues have been for 12 months. When the revenues are taken for 12 months, the costs have also to be taken for 12 months and not for 10 months. Therefore, the TPO is directed to adopt the costs for 12 months for arriving at CAGR of the cost for the year 2005-06.
The TPO has clearly erred in arriving at the revenues for the FY 2004-05 relates to AY 2005-06. As per Step 1, the turnover for the FY 2004-05 relating to FY 2005-06 is ₹ 72,20,84,213/- whereas the TPO has arrived at the turnover at ₹ 198,15,17,988/- which is totally wrong. In the original order passed by TPO, the turnover arrived at Step 1 has been taken in Step 4 also and no specific directions were given by the earlier Bench for arriving at these revenues in this step. The TPO has to reduce sales returns against sales in all the steps and cannot arbitrarily include in some steps. In the earlier order, we had not given specific directions as we found that in the original TP order the revenue are same in Step I and Step 4. - AO directed to adopt the revised/modified transfer pricing adjustment which will be worked out by the TPO - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 280 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deduction u/s 80IC - higher profit - purchase of some of the components from outside - Held that:- pursuance of remand report shows that all the details were furnished before the Assessing Officer on 28.3.2011 and the books of account along with vouchers were also produced before him. It has been specified at para 6 of the remand report that books of accounts of Nathu Plasi, Nalagarh were verified that separate books of account have been maintained. Only objection which he has raised regarding denial of deduction that some of the components have been purchased from outside and the profit of the eligible unit are on higher side - it was not denied that the assessee was manufacturing the transformers and some components were purchased from the market. It cannot be accepted that the assessee should be manufacturing all the components. Further merely showing that that the profits are on higher side, is not sufficient and no defects are pointed out and therefore deduction cannot be denied - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 279 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Depreciation on Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities - depreciation on electricity line for transmission of metering. - nature contribution made to GEDA - CIT allowed depreciation @ 80% - Held that:- machineries had no independent functioning as such. Merely because it improves the working system or controlling / monitoring system, it cannot be treated as an independent machinery and not part of the integrated machinery - payment made for overhead service line, which remained the property of Electricity Board, is allowable as revenue expenditure - Following decision of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [1979 (10) TMI 68 - BOMBAY High Court] - Decided against Revenue.
Depreciation on electricity line for transmission of metering - CIT allowed depreciation @ 80% - Held that:- Power Evacuation Infrastructure facilities was used for less than 180 days, depreciation can be granted at only 40% (i.e. 50% of the normal depreciation of 80%) - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 278 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance u/s 14A - Investments in the mutual fund - Expenses in relation to income not forming part of total income – Held that:- No deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14A(1) - The company is chargeable to tax on its profits as a distinct taxable entity and it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not on behalf of or as an agent for its shareholders. In the hands of the shareholder as the recipient of dividend, income by way of dividend does not form part of the total income by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33). Income from mutual funds stands on the same basis - The provisions of sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 are constitutionally valid - The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules as inserted by the Income Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 are not ultra vires the provisions of Section 14A, more particularly sub section (2) and do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution - the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record - Following decision of Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus M/s Hero Cycles Ltd [2009 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee.
Deduction u/s 80IB - Small scale industry - Held that:- There is no condition that new definition of small scale industry is applicable to the new units only - Amount of investment has to be seen as on the last date of previous year - during assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had raised certain unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that interest paid was excessive and therefore, restricted the allowance of interest to 12% - However, On appeal the claim of interest was accepted at15% - Following decision of Sunder Forging, Ludhiana v. Department Of Income Tax [2013 (8) TMI 298 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 277 - ITAT BANGALORE
Computation of Capital gains u/s 50 - deduction of notional depreciation on unused assets - Held that:- assessee was not in possession and control of the assets due to the seizure as aforesaid so as to use them for the conduct of the business. There was neither active nor passive use of the said assets as they remain seized by the Banks. The assets were auctioned by the banks to the best bidder and the assets were directly handed over by the bank to the buyer - The assessee who could not exercise any control of ownership could not be called as the owner and could not be said to have used the said asset so as to claim depreciation in respect thereof - Depreciation is inseparable from the actual user for business and depreciation allowance is permissible only on that account. It is not an allowance for natural wear and tear by reason of the aging process. Every building starts aging from the day it is constructed, but depreciation is claimable only on account of its user for business which can result in profits and gains - In section 32 the emphasis is on the user of the asset in the business of the assessee. There must be actual, effective and real user in the commercial sense and the user in the commercial sense and the user must be so linked with the business that it can be said that there is an immediate nexus between the user and the business, i.e. the real business of the assessee - Section 50 contains special provisions for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. The said section nowhere provides that certain deemed depreciation needs to be allowed - where the depreciation has been allowed as per the provisions of the Act after the fulfilling conditions prescribed u/s 32 of the Act and then the special provisions of section 50 would follow - Following decision of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Versus Suhrid Geigy Limited [1981 (4) TMI 79 - GUJARAT High Court] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 43B - Interest liability not paid - CIT upheld disallowance - Held that:- The assessee understood the OTS of ₹ 378.72 lakhs as being first attributed towards interest and balance towards principal leaving a portion of principal unpaid and waived. On this basis, the assessee claimed interest deduction u/s 43B and offered, though, wrongly the waived principal to tax. Even if one would understand the OTS of ₹ 378.72 as being first attributed towards principal and balance towards interest, it means that unpaid interest of ₹ 1,93,96,881 is to be disallowed u/s 43B - As both erroneous offer of waived principal sum to tax and erroneous claim of interest u/s 43B emanated from a single transaction/event i.e. OTS, both should be understood to have cancelled each other. In other words, whichever way the appropriation of OTS is understood, the assessee cannot be put into double jeopardy - Disallowance u/s 43B reduced - Decided partly against assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 261 - SUPREME COURT
Incentive bonus - Perquisites - Whether the incentive bonus paid to the Development Officers by the Life Insurance Corporation prior to 01.04.1989 would form part of the salary and, thus, eligible to income tax - Held that:- Perquisite is excluded from the purview of Section 10(14) - what is excluded under Section 10(14) as it stood prior to 01.04.1989 is the expenses incurred in the performance of the duty. It is for the employer to certify the actual expenses incurred in the performance of duty and in which case, as clarified by the CBDT, to that extent, the same shall not be shown as part of salary.
The High Court of Gujarat failed to take note of the reply by the CBDT that it was for the LIC of India to reimburse the actual expenditure involved in the performance of the duty by the Development Officers and to that extent the same was not to be shown as salary.
Compartmentalization of income under various heads and computation of the taxable portion strictly in accordance with the formula of deductions, rebates and allowances are to be done only as per the scheme provided under the Act - The appellant being a salaried person, the incentive bonus received by him prior to 01.04.1989 has to be treated as salary and he is entitled only for the permissible deductions under Section 16 of the Act.
The expenses incurred in the performance of duty as Development Officer for generating the business so as to make him eligible for the incentive bonus is not a permissible deduction and, hence, the same is exigible to tax - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 252 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Registration u/s 12A - Tribunal followed previous decisions of Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba Memorial Sh. Hari Parmarth Dham Trust Vs. C.I.T. Dehradun [2007 (8) TMI 380 - ITAT DELHI-B] directed to assessee as registered u/s 12A - Difference of opinions - matter referred to larger bench on the following issues:
(i) whether non disposal of application for registration by granting or refusing registration before the expiry of six months as provided under Section 12AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would result in deemed grant of registration.
(ii) Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment (supra) holding that the effect of non consideration of the application for registration within the time fixed by Section 12AA(2) would be deemed grant of registration, is legally correct.
-
2013 (8) TMI 251 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disciplinary proceedings against the revenue officer - Quashing of charge sheet - Curtailment of procedure - Held that:- Disciplinary Authority had approved the charge-sheet on July 21, 2008, the charge-sheet was issued to respondent No.1. Regrettably the Tribunal relies upon an earlier approval of February 14, 2006 for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the respondent No.1, to set aside the same. There is no requirement in the rules that the views of the employee concerned are to be ascertained before a charge-sheet is issued. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority should be meaningful, based on relevant material on record. A view in favour/against the employee in an internal inquiry/advice by Commission would only be a necessary input for the Disciplinary Authority for forming an opinion. If the decision making process demonstrates application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority then such a decision can’t be interfered with - Following decision of Union of India vs. Upendra Singh [1994 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of Petitioner.
Issue of charge sheet - Charges relating to quasi judicial function - Held that:- It is now well settled principle of law that an officer taking decision in exercise of quasi judicial function is not immune from disciplinary proceedings. However, it is only the conduct of the officer in discharge of his duties and not correctness or legality of his decision which could be the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings - A wrong interpretation of law cannot be a ground for misconduct - it is necessary that before initiating disciplinary action, the Department must have a prima facie material to show recklessness and that the officer had acted negligently or by his order unduly favoured a party and his action was actuated by corrupt motive - Following decision of Union of India vs. K.K.Dhawan [1993 (1) TMI 255 - Supreme Court], Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. U.O.I. [1999 (8) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and UOI & Ors. vs. Arindam Lahiri [2009 (3) TMI 909 - Delhi High Court] - Decided against Petitioner.
............
|
