|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1070 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 916
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the Appellant, a manufacturer of dutiable goods, allowing them to claim input credit of service tax against duty liability on goods cleared to principal manufacturer under Notification No.214/86-CE. The department's denial of setoff was overturned as the goods were not exempted. Stay application and appeal were both allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 915
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of Long Term Capital Gain, application of the decision in K.P. Varghese case, valuation of property, deductibility of business expenditure, and the continuation of business activities.
Deletion of Addition on Long Term Capital Gain:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the AO for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without appreciating the valuation made by the department's valuer. The Revenue contended that the onus was on the Revenue to prove additional consideration received by the assessee, but no evidence was brought forward. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, citing previous decisions in the assessee's favor for subsequent assessment years, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Valuation of Property and Application of K.P. Varghese Case:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the decision in K.P. Varghese case, as the relevant provision had been deleted from the statute. The Revenue referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, but no valuation report was submitted due to non-cooperation from the assessee. The assessee contended that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of understated consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the absence of material to suggest understatement of consideration, and ruled in favor of the assessee.
Deductibility of Business Expenditure:
The CO by the assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the deductibility of business expenditure. The assessee argued that the expenses should be allowed as deductible under "Business Income." The Tribunal noted a complete stoppage of business from 1999 to 2007, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the expenses claimed by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee, confirming the CIT(A)'s orders on the issues discussed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 914
Profit arriving from purchase & sale of shares - capital gain or business income - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in similar activity for the last 30 years and for the last 25 years the assessee was assessed to tax under the head capital gain on similar activity. The revenue never treated the shares as stock-in trade in the hands of the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not carrying on the business of shares. These findings of the Tribunal have been upheld, therefore, the matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of assessee itself, namely Shri Dilip V. Variya [2013 (5) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI ]
-
2013 (5) TMI 913
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147.
2. Disallowance of product development expenses.
3. Claim of exemption u/s 10A and carry forward of loss.
Summary:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147:
The first issue raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act was not pressed at the time of hearing and was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
2. Disallowance of product development expenses:
The second issue concerned the disallowance of Rs. 4,02,11,000/- representing product development expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this amount, treating it as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation at 25%. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on the order for the assessment year 2003-04. However, the Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in ITA No. 1179/PN/2009 dated 27.07.2012, where it was held that the product development expenses were revenue in nature. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure did not result in the acquisition of any new asset and was incurred in the course of carrying on the business. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee, treating the expenses as revenue expenditure. The alternative plea of the assessee under Section 35(1)(i) or Section 35(1)(iv) was rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.
3. Claim of exemption u/s 10A and carry forward of loss:
The Revenue's cross-appeal raised issues regarding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim u/s 10A after set-off of unabsorbed carry forward losses/depreciation. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,21,57,820/- on account of "Disallowance of Exemption under Section 10A and carry forward of loss." The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, noting that the assessee did not claim any such exemption in the return of income but mentioned it by way of a Footnote. The CIT(A) held that the claim u/s 10A should be allowed if the conditions are fulfilled after set-off of losses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal as they were not substantiated.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 28th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 912
Pre-deposit - Held that: - In the absence of any stay of the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 911
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of registration u/s 12AA.
2. Rejection of exemption u/s 80G.
3. Alleged violations of Sec. 11(5) and Sec. 13(3) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Genuineness of the activities of the trust.
5. Investment in shares and deposits.
6. Requirement for notification u/s 10(23C)(iiiad).
Summary:
1. Rejection of registration u/s 12AA:
The assessee's applications for registration u/s 12AA and exemption u/s 80G were rejected by the DIT(E), Delhi. The DIT(E) cited several reasons, including provisions in the MOA that allegedly violated Sec. 11(5) and Sec. 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the lack of regular charitable activities.
2. Rejection of exemption u/s 80G:
The DIT(E) also denied exemption u/s 80G, stating that the society's activities were not regular and continuous, and that the MOA did not provide for the allocation of functions and duties of office bearers.
3. Alleged violations of Sec. 11(5) and Sec. 13(3):
The DIT(E) noted that the society had invested Rs. 85 lakhs in a concern where the founder members had substantial interest, which was a clear violation of Sec. 11(5). However, the tribunal found that these investments were withdrawn and placed in HDFC Bank Ltd., and there were no such violations in the current or subsequent years.
4. Genuineness of the activities of the trust:
The tribunal held that the scope of enquiry for granting registration u/s 12AA is limited to examining the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. The tribunal cited case laws, including CIT vs. Red Rose School and Sri Krishna Education and Welfare Trust vs. CIT, to support its view that the DIT(E) should not have denied registration based on potential future violations.
5. Investment in shares and deposits:
The tribunal observed that the MOA allowed investments in shares and debentures of certain companies, but these clauses were dormant and not acted upon. The tribunal held that denying registration based on such potential actions was not warranted.
6. Requirement for notification u/s 10(23C)(iiiad):
The tribunal found that the law does not require the society to be notified for availing benefits u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, this was not a valid ground for disallowance.
Conclusion:
The tribunal directed the DIT(E) to grant registration u/s 12A read with Sec. 12AA of the Act and to grant exemption u/s 80G of the Act, as the objects of the society were charitable in nature and there were no violations of Sec. 11(5) or Sec. 13 during the relevant years. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 910
Issues involved:
1. Treatment of profit/gain on sale of land under Capital Gain or Business income.
2. Claim of loss due to embezzlement/cash shortage from an earlier year.
Issue 1: Treatment of profit/gain on sale of land
The appellant, a Co-operative Bank, challenged the assessment of profit/gain on the sale of a plot of land as business income instead of Capital Gain for the A.Y. 2008-09. The plot was initially purchased for construction but later sold due to poor economic conditions. The Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) considered it as a business asset, while the appellant argued it should be treated as a Capital Asset. The ITAT Pune held that the gain/loss on the sale of the land should be assessed under the Head Capital Gain, not as part of the bank's trading activity. The Assessing Officer was directed to assess the gain/loss accordingly and reduce the profit from the business income.
Issue 2: Claim of loss due to embezzlement/cash shortage
The appellant claimed a loss of Rs. 22,00,000 due to embezzlement/cash shortage in an earlier year, which was not allowed by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) as it pertained to a previous year. The ITAT Pune noted that the loss should be allowed in the year it is discovered, as per CBDT Circular and legal precedents. The appellant failed to provide reasons for claiming the loss in A.Y. 2008-09 when it was detected in 2004. Therefore, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) to disallow the loss claim was upheld.
In conclusion, the ITAT Pune partially allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the assessment of profit/gain on the sale of land as Capital Gain and confirming the disallowance of the loss claim due to embezzlement/cash shortage from an earlier year.
-
2013 (5) TMI 909
Addition on account of non reconciliation of AIR information - Held that:- We find that the assessee had shown higher income than the income reported in the report received by the AO. It reconciled all the accounts wherever ledger entries were made available to it. Only in one case he could not reconcile the entries. From the RR of the AO it is evident that the facts narrated by the FAA (para 2.2) are correct and based on sound footings. FAA had upheld a portion of addition where assessee had failed to reconcile the figure. In our opinion, in these circumstances, his order does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. Therefore, confirming his order we decide Ground against the AO.
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - short deduction of TDS - Held that:- DR fairly admitted that issue was decided in favour of the assessee. AR relied upon the order for the earlier year. We find that in the above referred order, to which one of us was party, Tribunal had held that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable in matters of short deduction of TDS. While deciding the issue Tribunal had placed reliance on the decision of M/s. Chandabhoy and Jassobhoy (2011 (7) TMI 956 - ITAT MUMBAI).
-
2013 (5) TMI 908
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- The very fact that the amount of loan is being brought forward when it was to be considered the actual payment received in the impugned assessment year whether could be subject to taxation as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act was for revisiting the definition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is of no avail. The AO has not been able to establish the facts otherwise, in so far as, it was not the assessee who suddenly took action for receiving the amount as deemed dividend when the department has been accepted the loan amount much more payable by it to M/s.Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. was acceptable to them earlier and further more the interest paid has been allowed by the AO in the impugned assessment year as expenditure.
It is not the case of the Revenue to give a name as deemed dividend to the interest income which has been earned by M/s.Pataka Industries Pv.t Ltd. on which tax has already paid for the impugned assessment year for the assessee. We have no hesitation in upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2013 (5) TMI 907
Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - incomplete declaration form ST/18/A - Held that: - the form could have been re-used but when all “material particulars” namely’ quality, weight description of the goods, value, name of the transporter, name of the consigner and consignee had been duly filled in, apprehension of the department that the form could have been re-used, is not sustainable. Only because invoice number and date was left to be filled in, in my opinion, the form could not have been re-used - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue-petitioner.
-
2013 (5) TMI 906
Issues involved: Dispute over transfer pricing adjustment made by AO for assessment year 2007-08.
Transfer Pricing Adjustment Issue:
The appeal by the revenue challenged the deletion of a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,96,69,219 made by the AO. The assessee, engaged in jewellery and diamond business, had sales to both associate enterprise (AE) and non-AE parties. The AO referred the matter to the TPO, who calculated an arms length profit resulting in the adjustment. The assessee contended that no adjustment was needed as the margin on operating cost for AE sales was higher than non-AE sales. CIT(A) agreed, directing the deletion of the addition, leading to the revenue's appeal before the tribunal.
Arguments and Decision:
The assessee argued that no adjustment was necessary as the margin for AE sales exceeded that of non-AE sales. Additionally, the TPO's method of calculating the adjustment based on total operating cost was incorrect. The tribunal found that the assessee's margin for AE sales was higher, indicating no need for adjustment. Even when considering the comparables selected by the TPO, the margin was within an acceptable range. The adjustment made by the TPO/AO was deemed incorrect as it should have been based solely on the operating cost related to AE sales. Consequently, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment, emphasizing the correct assessment based on operating costs related to AE sales.
-
2013 (5) TMI 905
Computation of Arm's Length Price - Method adopted for the computation - payment of management fees - Held that:- Assessee does not have any technical employee possessing experience to carry out product design and development therefore entered into an agreement with AE for management services wherein the AE agreed to provide product development related services to the appellant - assessee applied the TNMM as the most appropriate method - significant services which are critical to the business of the appellant were provided by the AE and the TPO was unjustified in determining the arm's length price of such services at Nil applying the CUP method - assessee collected the additional evidence from its AE to support the ALP - consideration of these additional evidences is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter - thus AO shall consider these grounds afresh, in light of the additional evidences - Remanded back for statistical purposes
Disallowance of administrative charges u/s. 40A(2) - services such as IT services, Accounting Services, financial and taxation services etc - Held that:-evidences are being placed on record by way of additional evidences to demonstrate the fact that entire administrative and marketing support services, required for the business of the appellant, were, in fact, being performed by Talbros - thus additional evidences, is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue - hence the additional evidences are admitted and the case is remitted back to AO to consider the issue afresh - Remanded back for statistical purposes
-
2013 (5) TMI 904
Issues involved: Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against judgment and order passed by Trade Tax Tribunal for assessment year 1999-2000.
Summary:
The case involved a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the judgment and order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee was engaged in manufacturing and selling bricks during the relevant assessment year. A survey conducted at the business premises revealed discrepancies, leading the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to reject the books of accounts and make additions on an estimate basis. However, both the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal deleted these additions. The Department, aggrieved by this decision, filed the present revision before the High Court. The A.O.'s additions on an estimate basis were a key point of contention in the case.
The High Court noted that the A.O.'s additions on an estimate basis were deleted by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. The Court referred to the legal position on estimation as established in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 758. It also cited similar views expressed in previous cases handled by the High Court. Given the well-settled legal position on estimation, the Court found no emerging question of law from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's order without interference, as it was in line with established legal principles.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the Department, emphasizing that no interference was necessary in the sustained order of the Tribunal. The decision was made without imposing any costs on either party.
-
2013 (5) TMI 903
Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the assessee should have deducted Tax at source on payment of VSAT charges, Leasline charges, and transaction charges paid to Stock Exchange, and whether the provisions of Sec. 40a(ia) of the Act are applicable.
Details of the judgment:
1. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee paid charges to the stock exchange for services provided in transactions in securities but did not deduct tax at source. The AO disallowed the charges u/s. 40a(ia) of the Act.
2. The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that based on judicial decisions, no liability for TDS is attracted on these payments. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.
3. The ITAT considered the submissions and judicial decisions. Referring to a decision by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, it was found that the charges paid were merely reimbursement and did not have any income element, thus TDS was not required. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on VSAT and leaseline charges were confirmed.
4. Regarding transaction charges, it was noted that both parties proceeded on the belief that tax was not deductible for several years. The AO's addition for A.Y. 2006-07 was not sustained, and since the assessee started deducting tax from A.Y. 2008-09, the disallowance for A.Y. 2007-08 was not confirmed based on the bonafide belief of the assessee.
5. Following the above analysis, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the findings of the lower authorities were confirmed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 902
Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals by the revenue against orders of the CIT(A)- III, Hyderabad for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, focusing on deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and quantum additions by the CIT(A).
Deletion of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The ITAT Hyderabad considered the case where penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied due to a quantum addition made towards rate difference in power tariff. The tribunal held that the penalty cannot be imposed as the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income or conceal income. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd., it was emphasized that making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the addition was deleted, the penalty on a non-existent addition was also deleted.
Quantum Additions by CIT(A):
The case involved an assessee engaged in power generation and supply to AP Transco. Disputes arose regarding the rate at which income should be accounted for taxation, with the assessee raising invoices at higher rates than accounted for. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous order for AY 2005-06, stating that income recognition should align with actual receipts. The tribunal directed that income should be taxed in the relevant assessment year when actually received, as per the finality of tariff rate judgments by higher judicial forums.
Final Decision:
The ITAT allowed appeals for statistical purposes in ITA Nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7/Hyd/2013, remitting the issue to the AO with directions similar to AY 2006-07. The appeal in ITA No. 4/Hyd/2013 was dismissed, upholding the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The judgment was pronounced on 10/05/2013 by the ITAT Hyderabad.
-
2013 (5) TMI 901
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad heard appeals against the CIT(A) order for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee for not paying taxes on the returned incomes. The assessee had requested to adjust cash found during a search and seizure action under S.132 of the Income-tax Act against the taxes due. The Tribunal had previously directed to condone the delay in tax payment due to late adjustment of seized cash. The Departmental Representative did not object to remand the appeals to the CIT(A) if the seized cash was adjusted towards the taxes due. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders, restored the appeals, and directed to condone the delay in tax payment if the seized cash was adjusted, and dispose off the appeals on merits after giving a hearing to the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (5) TMI 900
Issues Involved:
1. MAT Credit Entitlement
2. Provision for Doubtful Debts
3. Additional Depreciation on Captive Thermal Power Plant
4. Subsidy under TUF Scheme
5. MODVAT Credit on Capital Goods
6. Suspicious Transactions
7. Trading Loss on Viscose Fiber
Summary:
1. MAT Credit Entitlement:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to recompute the book profit u/s 115JB without deducting the amount of Rs. 65,23,000/- on account of MAT Credit Entitlement. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown current tax at Rs. 65,23,000/-, nullified by a contra-entry towards MAT credit entitlement in the profit and loss account. No provision for current income tax was made, and the provision for deferred tax was correctly added back while computing the book profits. The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
2. Provision for Doubtful Debts:
The CIT directed the AO to add Rs. 37,62,000/- in computing the book profit due to an amendment made by Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The Tribunal noted that the amendment was retrospective, and the assessee had correctly followed the law at the time of filing the return. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Vijay Bank Limited Vs. CIT and concluded that the direction to add the entire amount was incorrect. The Tribunal held that this did not constitute an error in the assessment order.
3. Additional Depreciation on Captive Thermal Power Plant:
The CIT held that the assessee was not entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on the new plant and machinery as it did not manufacture or produce any article or thing. The Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in manufacturing yarn, cloth, and garments, installed a plant for captive power consumption. Citing the Madras High Court decision in CIT Vs. VTM Ltd. and the Supreme Court decision in State of A.P. Vs. NTPC, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation and set aside the CIT's direction.
4. Subsidy under TUF Scheme:
The CIT observed that the subsidy granted under the TUF Scheme was not reduced from the cost of new assets. The Tribunal found that no capital subsidy was received during the relevant year, and the interest subsidy was already reduced from the interest expenditure. The capital subsidy received in the next year was correctly reduced from the cost of assets. The Tribunal held that there was no error in the AO's order on this count.
5. MODVAT Credit on Capital Goods:
The CIT noted that MODVAT credit on capital goods was not reduced from the cost of assets. The Tribunal found that the assessee followed an accounting system where CENVAT charged on capital goods was not included in the cost of plant and machinery but was taken to the capital MODVAT receivable account. The Tribunal concluded that the amount was not required to be reduced from the cost of assets, and thus, there was no merit in the CIT's finding.
6. Suspicious Transactions:
The CIT directed the AO to examine the claim of loss due to fraud amounting to Rs. 43.25 lakhs in earlier years, detected and recovered in A.Y. 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the fraud amount related to various years and was already recovered and offered for taxation in A.Y. 2009-10. The Tribunal held that this could not be considered an error in the assessment order.
7. Trading Loss on Viscose Fiber:
The CIT observed that the AO had not examined the genuineness of trading loss on viscose fiber. The Tribunal found that the transactions were on a cost-to-cost basis, and the AO had examined and accepted the same. The Tribunal held that the AO had adopted one of the possible views, and this did not amount to an error in the order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order u/s 263 and restored the AO's order, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions for revision under Section 263, namely 'error in the order' and 'prejudice to the Revenue,' were not met in this case.
-
2013 (5) TMI 899
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for AY 2002-03.
Details of the Judgment:
1. Issue 1 - Concealment of Income:
- The assessee received a gift of immovable property and claimed it as exempt income.
- Assessing Officer treated the gift as income u/s 28(iv) of the Act.
- Tribunal confirmed the addition, and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated.
- Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleted the penalty, stating no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
- Revenue argued that the gift was for professional services rendered, not love and affection.
- Assessee contended the gift was out of love and affection, not for services rendered.
- Tribunal noted the assessee disclosed all relevant facts and particulars regarding the gift.
- Merely because the claim was not accepted does not attract penalty provisions.
2. Issue 2 - Legal Precedents:
- Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Ltd.
- The Supreme Court held that incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- Merely making an unsustainable claim does not lead to penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
- The case did not involve concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
- The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
This judgment highlights the importance of disclosing all relevant facts and particulars, even if a claim is not accepted, to avoid penalties for concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. It also emphasizes the significance of legal precedents in determining the applicability of penalty provisions under the IT Act.
-
2013 (5) TMI 898
Issues involved: The judgment involves a common issue regarding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2002-03.
Assessment Year 2001-02:
- The appeal was against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income related to the disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the Act.
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal as the quantum proceedings were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for determination afresh, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid.
- The penalty levied was deleted, with the direction for the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with the law after deciding the quantum proceedings.
Assessment Year 2002-03:
- The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for partial disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, which was later scaled down by the CIT(A).
- The Tribunal ruled that since the quantum proceedings were restored back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings could not survive, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
- The Assessing Officer was directed to proceed in accordance with the law after deciding the quantum proceedings.
Assessment Year 2000-01:
- Similar to the previous years, the penalty was imposed for partial disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, which was later reduced by the CIT(A).
- The Tribunal held that as the quantum proceedings were remitted back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings were no longer valid, resulting in the deletion of the penalty.
- The Assessing Officer was instructed to proceed in accordance with the law after deciding the quantum proceedings.
Assessment Year 1999-2000:
- The penalty was imposed for partial disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, which was later reduced by the CIT(A).
- Following the same pattern as the other years, the Tribunal ruled that since the quantum proceedings were restored back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings were nullified, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
- The Assessing Officer was directed to proceed in accordance with the law after deciding the quantum proceedings.
Remaining Appeals:
- The appeals filed by the assessee against the common order of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2002-03 were dismissed as infructuous due to being filed belatedly and the issues raised being similar to those addressed in the earlier paragraphs.
This judgment highlights the interplay between quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for coherence between the two processes for a fair and just outcome.
-
2013 (5) TMI 897
Issues involved:
The appeal for recall of an order dated 27.11.2012 of the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.1377 to 1380/Mds/2012 for assessment year 2007-08 due to the absence of the assessees during the hearing.
The assessees filed miscellaneous petitions seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order as they were unable to appear during the hearing due to reasons beyond their control. The notices of hearing were served through Shri G.Kumar, who did not have the authority to receive the notices, and the designated Chartered Accountant, Shri T.R.Subramanian, was indisposed due to a medical condition. The Tribunal had previously decided the issue on merits, partly allowing the Revenue's appeals based on the location of the sold land in a Town Panchayat. The assessees argued that the decision regarding the Town Panchayat's classification was not open for challenge as the appeal was heard ex-parte. The Departmental Representative supported the Tribunal's order, attributing the assessees' absence to negligence without any error warranting a recall.
Upon reviewing the contentions, the Tribunal noted that Shri G.Kumar, who received the notices, did not have the Power of Attorney at the time. However, it was acknowledged that the notices were passed on to Shri T.R.Subramanian, who was medically certified to be unfit for official work. The Tribunal had previously classified the area of the sold land as a Town Panchayat, distinct from a Panchayat, leading to the levy of capital gains. The assessees highlighted a contradictory view in a Co-ordinate Bench order, prompting the Tribunal to consider the eligibility of invoking Rule 25 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules for the recall. Despite the general limitation on recalling appeals decided on merits, the assessees demonstrated that their absence during the hearing prejudiced them. Consequently, the Tribunal found valid reasons to recall its order, reinstating the appeals for further hearing.
The miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessees were allowed, and the order for recall was pronounced in an open court session on May 3, 2013, in Chennai.
............
|
9911796707
