|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1037 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1467 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... ate of filing of the return entitled the assessee to claim the expenses in the impugned Assessment Year and not to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer, therefore, clearly noted that only part of the TDS amount was deposited in the FY itself for disallowing the remaining part of the claim was to be considered on the basis of such tax deposited on 31st May,2005 on the entire amount did not require further interpretation of law. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) were restricting their observations on the first amendment and second amendment separately with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005 therefore clinches the issue in favour of the assessee in accordance with the cited decisions as well. We direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee by deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) amounting to ₹35,75,695. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 25.01.2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1466 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n the investment made earlier. Since no actual expenditure can be said to have been incurred for the purpose of earning interest on RBI tax free relief bonds, the question of estimating the reasonable expenditure for the purpose of earning interest does not arise. We, therefore, delete the disallowance estimated by the AO and further confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Before parting with the matter, we may observe that the decision of Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (supra) has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce - 328 ITR 81 where it has been held that Rule 8D is applicable only from the AY 2008-09 only. Therefore, by applying Rule 8D also, no disallowance can be made in this year which is relevant to the AY 2003-04. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO stands deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 28th January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1465 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... large amount of carried forward depreciation as well as additional depreciation of this year which were allowed to be carried forward which do indicate that the assessee has made the claim bonafidely. If the depreciation is not allowable in this year the same is allowable in the later year and certainly there is no tax planning involved in this claim as the assessee has paid separate tax under section 115JB. The affidavit filed by the partner of M/s. P.D. Saraf & Co. do indicate the Late P.D. Saraf advised the clients stating that the second proviso is not applicable for the claim of additional depreciation whereas normal depreciation was already districted to 50 . The circumstances do indicate that the claim is a bonafide claim, rejection of which does not warrant any penalty under section 271(1)(c). Accordingly we cancel the penalty and allow the ground raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th January 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1464 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e respondent, drawn on any Nationalised bank. The bank guarantee shall be in favour of the Department, in respect of 50 of the difference in duty, to be kept alive till the adjudication process is completed. (3) In respect of the remaining 50 of the difference in duty, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondent. On completion of all the three conditions, the respondent shall release the goods. (4) On release of the goods in question, on the petitioner complying with the said conditions, the respondents shall complete the adjudication process, within a period of four weeks thereafter, by issuing a necessary show cause notice. It is made clear that on the issuing of the necessary show cause notice, the petitioner shall submit its objections, appear before the respondent, through its authorised representatives and cooperate with the Department in the adjudication process." Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1463 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... he AO had invoked s. 14A of the Act. Indeed, reference to s. 14A in the assessment order was a typographical error. Nevertheless, in our considered opinion, where technicalities are pitched against the substantive justice, the latter has to prevail in a case where bona fides are not in question. In the present case, in our view, the matter deserves to be set aside to the file of the CIT(A), who shall adjudicate the ground of appeal raised by the assessee regarding merits of the impugned additions, in accordance with law. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before adjudicating the claim raised by the assessee, as per law. 13. Accordingly, on this aspect the assessee succeeds for statistical purposes. 14. The other ground of appeal raised in the memo of appeal relating to the status of the assessee has not been argued before us and is accordingly dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1462 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... at the Assessing Officer is not competent to reopen the assessment merely on the basis of an audit objection especially when the audit objection itself was vague and baseless. We find that even now before us Ld.SR DR could not find out any factual error or escapement of any income which suggest reopening. Rather, the AO failed to apply his mind to the issue and merely sought to verify the net profit disclosed by the assessee which allegedly was very low. We are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly held that this is a subject matter of proceedings u/s.143(2) and the reassessment proceedings could not be used as an extension and/or substitution for such power. The non-application of mind by the AO and his failure to record his own reasons had vitiated the provisions of Sec. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(A) has rightly quashed the reassessment proceedings and we uphold the same. 5. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/01/2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1461 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... his fact becomes clear from page 58 of the paper book back side where same has been noted for registration by the Office of Dy. Inspector General of Registration and Dy. Collector of Stamps Bombay and the stamp duty has been shown at ₹ 7,40,000/- on 27-1-1999. • Secondly, sec.50C was introduced into the Statute by Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 1-4-2003 and, therefore, in a case where the document has already been registered before the insertion of this provision, this section cannot be applied. • Thirdly, in this case the MOU was executed on 24-4-1992 and consideration was agreed on per square feet on that date itself, therefore, it may not be proper to apply the rates of later date. In view of these reasons, we are of the view, that the Ld. CIT A has correctly held that the provisions of sec 50C are not applicable. 37. In the result, revenue appeal in I.T.A.No.5775/M/08 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 12th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1460 - ITAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... int out that the issue before the Hon’ble Court was that whether the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation when the machinery was NOT put to use even though it was ready for use, whereas the issue on hand is entirely on a different track which is clearly distinguishable on facts of the issue and, thus, the said ruling of the Hon’ble Court cannot be cited here to deprive the legitimate claim of the assessee. 6.8. In an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the issue as discussed comprehensively in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the unanimous view that the authorities below were not justified in depriving the exemption legitimately claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. The AO, is, therefore, directed to allow the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Act to the tune of ₹ 2,16,61,670/-. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1459 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ; 1,49,239/- was incurred for Syntravere Drums meant to replace the old and worn out part of machinery. ₹ 9 lakhs was incurred towards development charges paid to CPDCL of AP for providing additional load of electricity to run the business smoothly. In our opinion, the expenditure incurred for replacing the work out parts is on account of repair and maintenance and amount of ₹ 9 lakhs is towards additional power supply which is in the revenue field and the treatment given to this expenditure in books cannot be a conclusive evidence to disallow the expenditure or treated as capital expenditure. We place reliance on the SC in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mgf. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (82 ITR 363) (S.C) . In our opinion, the expenditure is to be considered as Revenue expenditure and is to be allowed. 5. In the result, the Revenue appeals in ITA No.1173 & 1174/H/2009 are partly allowed and in ITA No.1175/H/2009 stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court 31.1.2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1458 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the insurance policy has been placed in the paper book at pages 10 to 15 and it shows that the risk has commenced on 28-3-2005 that means during the year but major period falls in next year. It is not clear whether assessee was providing for expenditure and also accounting for prepaid expenditure which means the expenditure which is payable for the period under consideration but has not been paid and has been taken as liability on accrual principle and expenditure which has been paid for future has been reckoned as prepaid expenditure asset. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT A and remit this matter back to the file of the AO to see the exact policy of accounting of the assessee and then decide the issue in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. B. N. Exports supra . 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 28th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1457 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nternational traffic failed to bring any rules, regulations, bye-laws for substantiating his contentions. The coordinate Bench of the ITAT has examined this issue in detail and considered these aspects. Unless some strong circumstances which has not been brought to the notice of the earlier Bench, are available, we cannot take a different stand even if it is possible to take the other view. The revenue is unable to bring any material on record which can pursued us to take a different view then the one earlier taken by the ITAT in the case of Lufthansa Airlines reported in 90 ITD page 310. The ITAT has distinguished the facts in the case of Lufthansa then British Airways. The Indo-Netherlands treaty is similar to that of Indo-German and not in parity with Indo UK Treaty. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in these appeals. They are dismissed.” 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 28 January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1456 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to have actually taken place on account of the reasons which led to the issuance of notice u/s.148, then the AO cannot assess or re-assess any other income which comes to his notice during the course of re-assessment proceedings. 10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that as both the issues for which the assessment was re-opened did not find their place in the assessment order as leading to the escapement of income, there was no justification for the AO to continue with the re-assessment proceedings. We, therefore, allow the first ground of appeal. 11. In view of our decision on the first ground, the other grounds have become academic in nature as the jurisdiction of the AO was ousted to assess or re-assess any other income which came to his notice during the course of proceedings under the section. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order on this legal issue. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced on the 14th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1455 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... he accounts book or any accounts the question of its audit does not arise. In such an event the imposition of penalty under the provision contained in s.271A of the Act for the alleged non compliance of s. 44AA of the Act may arise but the provisions of s. 44AB of the Act do not get violated in case where the accounts have not been maintained at all and, therefore, penal provisions of s. 271B of the Act would not apply.” 7. Following the aforesaid observations, which are squarely applicable to the present fact situation, we find no justification to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustaining the penalty under section 271B of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Act amounting to Rs 40,940/-. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1454 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ut right now I am not in seisin of income of the co-owners, and that aspect of the matter will have no bearing on adjudication of this appeal. In this view of the matter, the very initiation of reassessment proceedings in the hands of the AOP of co-owners, i.e., assessee before me in this appeal, is unsustainable in law. 10. For the reasons set out above, as being of the considered view that there was no income escaping assessment in the hands of the assessee before me, I quash the reassessment proceedings impugned in this appeal. As the reassessment itself is quashed for want of valid reasons of reopening the assessment, all other issues raised in this appeal, whether on the question of validity of issuance of notice beyond permissible time limit or on the question of merits of additions made during the course of such reassessment, are rendered academic and do not call for any adjudication at this stage. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1453 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... appeal. o p /o p 7. Coming to ground No.2, we direct the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and grant credit of tax deducted at source, if the claim is found correct. o p /o p 8. Coming to ground No.3, the assessee claims interest u/s 244A. This issue has not been specifically decided by the CIT(Appeals). As we are remitting ground No.2 to the file of the AO, we deem it proper to set aside this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the claim of the assessee for interest in accordance with law. The AO shall keep in mind the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT 280 ITR 643 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. H.E.G. Ltd. 324 ITR 331 (SC). Thus, ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p 9. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 28th January , 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (1) TMI 1452 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ar subject to the condition that the TDS is paid before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1). Obviously, this substitution has been made to remove unintended consequences and consequently in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusioins Ltd., referred to supra, the same would have to be given retrospective effect. In the present case as it is noticed that the assessee has deducted the TDS on the payments to both Sri Gunasekar and Sri Ravi in respect of the labour contracts and as it is noticed that the TDS has also been paid much before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1), we are of the view that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would not apply. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. The order was pronounced in the court on 7/1/2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1451 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ult of non production of TDS on labour charges as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that section 194C has no application to the facts of this case and section 40(a)(ia) is not invocable. The main reason for this plea is stated to be the fact that the embroidery work has been got done by the assessee from outside embroiders but under his own control and supervision and it is not a case of sub-contract as has been held by the A.O. After going through the order appealed against, we find that this is a nonspeaking order. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in the interest of justice, restore back the entire issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that he shall make an assessment order de novo after hearing the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the Eleventh Day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1450 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... has not furnished by the assessee. Being so, we are not in a position to hold it as tied up grant and accordingly the ratio laid down by the Hyderabad Bench in the case of Nirmala Agricultural Society cited supra cannot be applied. Regarding the accumulation of the sums, there is no dispute regarding this. However, the assessee is prohibited u/s 11(3A) with regard to give donation to Shri Ramakrishna Mutt by the proviso which reads as follows “ Provided that the assessing officer shall not allow application of such income by way of payment or credit made for the purposes referred to in clause (d) of sub section (3) of section 11”. 15. In view of the above proviso, in our opinion, the donation given to Ramakrishna Mutt cannot be considered as utilization and the assessee is not entitled for exemption as claimed by it. The 2nd ground in the appeal is decided against the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.434/H/2010 is partly allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1449 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ith the preliminary objection of the petitioner that the show cause notice could not have been issued in the obtaining factual matrix regard being had to the factual scenario. Mr. Bhatia as well as Mr.Mukesh Anand fairly stated that the adjudicating authority shall dwell upon the said facet as a preliminary issue. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the adjudicating authority, the second respondent herein, to decide the matter with regard to the jurisdictional facet taking into consideration the stand and stance put forth by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative. Needless to say, the order shall be a speaking one. The adjudicating authority shall deal with the matter, as directed hereinabove within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1448 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (Supra), and find out whether the assessee has received any money over and above the fees prescribed and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee . We make it clear that the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) in case it collected any money by whatever name it is called i.e., donation, building fund, auditorium fund etc. etc., over and above the prescribed fee for admission of students. o p /o p 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. o p /o p 4. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the above order, we set aside the issue in dispute to the file of assessing officer on similar direction for fresh consideration. o p /o p 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court 20.1.2011 o p /o p
............
|
