|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1244 Records
-
2014 (8) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rejection of request for registration under section 12AA - Held that:- As carefully gone through the Memorandum of Association and also the reasons given by the learned DIT (Exemption) it is not in dispute that the main object, i.e. to promote and popularise education for the benefit of handicapped, housewives, etc. cannot be said to be non-charitable object. So long as the object is of charitable nature registration cannot be rejected mainly on the ground that it has not commenced it activity. Since commencement would invariably or in most of the cases depend upon gathering of funds which event can take place only upon obtaining necessary permission from the tax authorities such as approval of the charitable activity and registration under section 12AA of the Act. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is a fit case for granting of registration. The AO is always free to consider allowability of exemption at the time of assessment. With these observations the matter is set aside to the file of the DIT. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1023 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Management, Maintenance and Repair service - Liability of service tax - Valuation of goods - Held that:- The present appeal will be governed by the judgment of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur Nagar v. M/s J.P. Transformers [2014 (9) TMI 307 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein found that the value of the goods and materials utilized for repair of the transformers is separately disclosed in the agreement and is separately mentioned in the invoices of the assessee. Thus service tax could not be demanded on that component representing the value of the goods and materials used for carrying out repairs. The mere fact that the cost of the various items was shown for the purpose of price variation was held not to make any difference to the legal position. no substantial question of law would arise - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1022 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Cenvat Credit - erstwhile Rules 57T(1) and 57T(2) - declaration made by appellants were not in terms of a purported Trade Notice issued by the respondent - Held that:- the necessary declaration was made by the appellant. - The only ground on which credit has been denied is thus without any basis. - Credit allowed.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1021 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sealing and locking of rented premises in 2010 by the central excise department for default on the part of tenant - Now that the tenancy has come to an end with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the respondents cannot, impose an obligation upon the petitioner to keep the goods. - Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to take immediate action for the sale of the properties kept inside the premises, through public auction. The respondents shall conduct the public auction, at the earliest, sell the properties and handover vacant possession to the petitioner, within a total period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that irrespective of whether the auction is successfully completed or not, the respondents shall handover vacant possession of the premises within the period stipulated above. No costs. M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1020 - ITAT MUMBAI
Re-opening of assessment u/s. 148 - assessee has raised the contention that no notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the assessee under the reopened assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) - DR submitted that vide Finance Act 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 section 292-BB has been inserted and any right which has been accruing to the assessee for non-service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act has been taken away with the insertion of section 292BB - Held that:- Since the assessment year involved in this case is 2001-02, hence, the newly inserted provision of section 292BB is not applicable to this year. In view of the said legal position as discussed the assessment proceedings in consequence of reopening u/s.147 were bad in law and cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1019 - ITAT MUMBAI
Re-opening of assessment u/s. 148 - assessee has raised the contention that no notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the assessee under the reopened assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 143(3) - DR submitted that vide Finance Act 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 section 292-BB has been inserted and any right which has been accruing to the assessee for non-service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act has been taken away with the insertion of section 292BB - Held that:- Since the assessment year involved in this case is 2001-02, hence, the newly inserted provision of section 292BB is not applicable to this year. In view of the said legal position as discussed the assessment proceedings in consequence of reopening u/s.147 were bad in law and cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1018 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - AO held that the assessee lost eligibility for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10) since the assessee failed to obtain project completion certificate from VMSS for the entire project - Held that:- We find that in the instant case, the housing project was approved on 10.03.2004 by the competent authority. The above fact is not in dispute. On the above fact, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. CHD Developers (2014 (1) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the condition for obtaining completion certificate within four years of the date of approval for being eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) is not applicable. The Departmental Representative could not point out any good reason as to why the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court should not be followed in the instant case.
We, therefore, respectfully following the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and delete the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1017 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - delay of 8 years after ex-parte order - Section 52 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Held that:- proceedings were held ex parte. The show cause notice was served by affixation. There appears to be discrepancies in the amount as shown in the original invoice which is ₹ 4,20,750/- and the amount shown in entry No.4 of annexure-A of the show cause notice which instead of ₹ 4,20,750/- has been shown to be ₹ 4,07,750/-. Thus, it is apparent that there appears to be some error. The effect of the error will have to be examined. The cause for delay in instituting the appeal after a gap of more than eight years appears to us to be sufficient and convincing. There is no proof on record that the show cause notice or the adjudication order were duly served upon the appellant or the erstwhile company M/s. Owen Brockway (I) Ltd. The delay condonation application is supported by uncontroverted affidavit. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be allowed. - Delay condoned.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1016 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - Transfer Pricing Authority has accepted valuation by the Assessing Authority determining the arm’s length price - ITAT set aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner under Section 263 - Held that:- Day the reference was made by the Assessing Authority to the Transfer Pricing Authority, there was no return pending for consideration by him and therefore, the very reference was bad. Even otherwise, the said Transfer Pricing Authority did not find fault with the adjudication of determining arm s length price by the Assessing Authority. In those circumstances, the Commissioner committed an error in exercising his power under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the said order. Therefore, we do not see any merit in appeal - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (8) TMI 1015 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The assessee had not disclosed the bank account maintained with UTI Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh (now Axis Bank) during the assessment proceedings. On calling information from the said bank, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited ₹ 1,20,00,000/- in the said account on 19.4.2006 and 22.4.2006 which remained unexplained. On scrutiny of bank statement, it was found that ₹ 1,19,90,000/- was transferred from the account of Shri Pritam Singh on 19.4.2006 and 22.4.2006 and there was an entry of ₹ 1,01,000/- of cash deposited on 3.8.2006 in the said account of Pritam Singh.
The explanation of the assessee was that he had received some advances from one Shri Pritam Singh for purchase of agricultural land on behalf of the company named M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. It was claimed that as the assessee had failed to arrange agricultural land for West Point Properties Pvt. Limited, therefore, the entire amount of ₹ 1.20 crores was returned back to them. The assessee was not able to substantiate his version as he had failed to provide any material to show that amount was received by Pritam Singh from M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The Assessing Officer had thus added the aforesaid amount as unexplained income of the assessee. The revisional authority had confirmed the said addition under Section 264 of the Act. The reference to various documents as contended by learned counsel does not establish the genuineness or the capacity of Shri Pritam Singh or availability of funds with M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The self serving affidavits or memorandum of understanding, compromise deed and statement of account of Pritam Singh from Axis Bank does not help the appellant as the assessee had failed to produce the alleged Shri Pritam Singh or furnish his address or PAN and establish the credentials of the company M/s West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. The Assessing Officer had thus rightly imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.- This was affirmed by CIT(A) on an appeal by the assessee - Decided against assesee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1014 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s.14A in relation to dividend income on shares held as stock-in-trade - Held that:- Taking into consideration the fact that the primary object of holding the shares is trading and the dividend income is incidental and further that due to continuous activity of sale and purchase of the shares, the annual turnover would be much higher in case of share trading as compared to the investments made for the purpose of earning of exempt income, even the disallowance @ 20% of the amount calculated under Rule 8D(2)(ii) will be on higher side. We feel that it will be appropriate if the said disallowance is restricted to 5% of the amount so arrived.
So far the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, since in the share trading activity, investment is not made for the purpose of earning exempt income, hence, the managerial/administrative expenses in relation to dividend income calculated under Rule 8D(2)(iii) are also required to be scaled down which we think that should be restricted to 10% of the amount so calculated under Rule 8D(2)(iii). In view of our above observations, the disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D is, accordingly, restricted to 5% of the amount arrived at under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 10% of the amount calculated by the A.O. under Rule 8D(2)(iii). - Decided partly in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1013 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessment u/s 153A - unexplained expenditure under the head “wages” - Held that:- The conclusion of the authorities below was that the assessee had not booked the complete expenditure on wages in its books of account as the numbers of the workers found during the course of survey were more than the list of workers available in the books of account. First of all the said survey was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 9.9.2004 when the said list was prepared. The conclusion of the said survey could not be applied while completing the assessment pursuant to search carried out at the premises of the assessee under section 132 of the Act. Secondly, there was no merit in the said addition being made in the hands of the assessee as the explanation of the assessee that the workers of the two concerns were totally considered in the list of workers prepared by the survey team for the assessee firm, cannot be ignored. The said list of 59 workers was prepared on 9.9.2004 and the plea of the assessee was that the said 59 workers as on the date of survey belonged to the assessee and its sister concern. The requisite list of workers employed with either of the concerns were filed on record. Merely because the said statement was confronted to one of the partners who had signed the list does not establish that the workers belonged to the firm in which he was a partner i.e. the assessee firm before us. In the absence of any concrete evidence found, we find no merit in the orders of the authorities below and no addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee on the basis of said list prepared by the survey team, where the assessee had clearly explained its case that the said total number of workers belonged to two concerns and not to the assessee itself. In any case, the additions in the hands of the assessee for the years under consideration have been made on pure estimation as no evidence of excess workers was found in the years under appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Sales made outside the books of account - Held that:- Addition is based on the documents seized from the residence of the partners of the assessee. The said documents reflected the quantity of goods sold and the persons to whom sold date-wise and the assessee had admitted having made kabari sales of waste material. In view thereof, the we uphold the addition of ₹ 4,55,185/- on account of seized documents. - Decided against assessee
Estimated profit of short stock found on the date of search - Held that:- As the addition on account of sale depicted in the seized documents being outside the books of account and on account of the explanation given by the assessee already upheld that the discrepancy stands reconciled on account of the GP rate to be applied and other discrepancies explained by the assessee, there is no merit in any further addition. Another aspect to be kept in mind is that the information gathered by the Income Tax Department during the search proceedings were forwarded to the Excise Department, who in turn visited the premises of the assessee and found no discrepancy in the stock. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the addition made on account of estimated profit of short stock found on the date of search. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1012 - ITAT PUNE
Admission of additional evidence - transfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- All the evidences sought to be canvassed for admission are relevant and germane to appropriately determine the arm's length price of the international transactions entered by the assessee with its associated enterprises. Considering the circumstances explained by the assessee, and the bonafides of the reasons not having been assailed by the Revenue, the same deserve to be admitted. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to admit the additional evidences having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Once additional evidence is required to be admitted, there is no gainsaying that an appropriate opportunity to the Department is required to be afforded to consider and evaluate the evidence for the purposes of working out the appropriate tax liability of the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the orders of the authorities below on the aspect of the transfer pricing assessment, and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall re-visit the determination of arm's length price of the international transactions having regard to the material and submissions that assessee may put-forth in support of its stand, including the aforesaid additional evidence. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall allow an appropriate opportunity to the assessee of being heard and to furnish appropriate material and evidence in support of its plea that the international transactions entered into with the associated enterprises during the year under consideration are at an arm's length price. The Assessing Officer shall consider the submissions and material put-forth by the assessee and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Addition on deduction on account of product warranty liability - Held that:- We find that in para 5 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has summarily sustained the disallowance of ₹ 8,95,141/- on account of provision of warranty existence without determination the issues, which the DRP required him to address. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of the Assessing Officer on this aspect also. As a consequence, we set-aside the assessment order on this aspect also and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after taking into consideration each of the points enumerated by the DRP in its order dated 30.08.2010 on this aspect. Needless to mention, the assessee shall furnish relevant material as would be required by the Assessing Officer to carry out the directions of the DRP. The Assessing Officer shall consider the material and submissions put-forth by the assessee and thereafter pass an order on this aspect afresh in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1011 - ITAT KOLKATA
Validity of revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Star Griha Pvt . Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 133 - ITAT KOLKATA ] for the assessment year 2008-09 and order passed by the ld. CIT, Kolkata- I I, Kolkata under section 263 stands upheld and the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1010 - ITAT PANAJI
Entitlement to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) - whether the assessee is a co-operative society which fulfills all the three conditions of being held a Primary Cooperative Bank as given in section 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949? - Held that:- The bye-laws of society does permit the admission of other co-operative society as member. Thus the third condition for becoming primary co-operative bank is not complied with. Since the assessee society did not comply all the three conditions, therefore, in our opinion the assessee society cannot be regarded to be a primary co-operative bank as all the three conditions as discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs are not complied with and in consequence it is not a co-operative bank and the assessee is not hit by the provision of section 80P(4).
Assessee has not to be regarded to be a primary co-operative bank as all the three basic conditions are not complied with, therefore, it is not a co-operative bank and the provisions of Sec. 80P(4) are not applicable in the case of the Assessee and Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to allow deduction to the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on the income generated for providing banking or credit facilities to its members. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1009 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of 25% of‘mining and processing charges’ - CIT(A) reduced disallowance to 10% - Held that:- On a bare perusal of the assessment order it becomes clear that AO himself has noted that out of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee some of the expenditure were found to be through selfmade vouchers. However, it is not known whether AO has conducted any enquiry or called for explanation from the assessee in respect of the alleged defects and deficiencies found in the bills and vouchers. It is also a fact that he has not pointed out any specific defects and deficiencies in the books of account. The CIT(A) after considering all these aspects and also taking into consideration the possible inflation in expenditure by the assessee has sustained the disallowance at 10% out of the total expenditure claimed. Having perused the order of the CIT(A) in the context of facts and materials on record, we are of the view that the order passed by the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 10% is fair and reasonable and need not be interfered with. - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of administrative expenses - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO. Undisputedly, the expenditure incurred is towards salaries and benefits paid to the employees. That being the case, there is little scope for the assessee to inflate expenditure or make any bogus claim. In the aforesaid view of the matter, AO was not justified in making adhoc disallowance of 25% out of the total expenditure claimed without bringing any evidence on record that the expenditure claimed is either bogus or not supported by evidence.- Decided against revenue
Disallowance made u/s 10B - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- So far as the observation that assessee has voluntarily offered not to claim any deduction u/s 10B is concerned, on a perusal of the statement recorded from Sri V.B Veera Reddy, dated 12/09/2008, we do not find any such specific reply given by him that no deduction would be claimed u/s 10B of the Act. In any case of the matter, it is clear from the assessment order that the assessee has shown more income in the return of income filed by him than what was offered at the time of search and in fact the AO has accepted the profit declared by the assessee in P&L a/c. Therefore, AO’s observation that the assessee has offered not to claim any deduction u/s 10B is of little relevance and as otherwise is also not borne out from the facts on record. So far as the second allegation of the AO that assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 10B for 10 consecutive assessment years is concerned, on a perusal of facts on record, it becomes clear that the iron ore mining activity was started by the assessee in FY 2007-08 corresponding to the AY under consideration. Therefore, the AO was not correct in observing that the assessee has not claimed any deduction in AY 2006-07. The third ground for denial of deduction u/s 10B is, assessee is not engaged in manufacturing activity. As can be seen from the elaborate discussion in the order of the CIT(A), the mining of iron ore as undertaken by the assessee passes through various processes and the final product is not similar to Iron ore in its natural form as found under the earth
Considering the facts of the assessee’s case in the context of provision contained u/s 10B as well as in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court ) , wherein it was held that the word ‘production’ is wide enough to take in its ambit the mining activity as ore is a thing which is produced through human effort as a result of such activity and Instruction issued by the CBDT, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (8) TMI 1008 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of claim u/s.80P(4) - income earned for the activity of credit society to grant finance to its members is parallel to Banking Business - Held that:- On perusal of the orders of authorities below, it is evident that they did not have the benefit of the precedents. Due to this reason, we are restoring this issue back to the file of the AO to be decided de novo after ascertaining that the facts of this assessee are identical with the facts of these precedents. Specially the AO shall examine the profit and loss account of the assessee along with balance sheet to exactly ascertain the nature of business of this assessee and if found that the same is matching with the business activity of the cited cases then the ratio laid down can be applied. The AO is also directed to verify the aims and objects of this assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee only for statistical purpose.
-
2014 (8) TMI 1007 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The balance sheet of the assessee shows that it has interest free funds amounting to ₹ 14,88,38,332/-, the investment is at ₹ 9,71,56,751/-, which clearly shows that the assessee was having sufficient interest free funds to make the investment. A further perusal of the balance sheet shows that the assessee was having loan funds as on 31/03/2007 at ₹ 33,29,48,063/- whereas the loan funds as on 31/03/2008 is at ₹ 1,36,00,000/-, which shows that there is a substantial fall in the loan funds which means that there are no fresh borrowings during the year under consideration. See Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd [2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY]
Thus in our considered view, there is no basis for deeming that the assessee had used the borrowed funds for investments in tax free securities. From the analysis of the balance sheet, the assessee had enough interest free funds at its disposal for making its investment. We therefore set-aside the findings of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 14A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1006 - SC ORDER
Profit derived from the sale of shares - short term capital gain OR business income - Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the decision of HC whereas it was held that, sale and purchase transactions of shares were made not for investment purposes but for business purposes as concluded by HC [2014 (5) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee
-
2014 (8) TMI 1005 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition relating to bogus purchases - Held that:- The undisputed facts are that the purchases were supported by bills, the payments were made by account payee cheque and the payments were duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. A perusal of the statement of the diamond traded during the year under consideration shows that the assessee purchased 1358.54 carats from M/s. Zalak Impex on 1.8.2005, the same was exported on 5.8.2005 and 871.57 carats were purchased on 2.8.2005 from M/s. Zalak Impex and were exported on 12.8.2005. No adverse inferences have been drawn by the AO in so far as exports of diamonds are concerned. Without purchases there cannot be any sales. The entire additions made by the AO are based on assumptions and presumptions. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
............
|
