|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 122373 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2019 (11) TMI 940
Condonation of delay - delay of 1754 days - HELD THAT:- The appellant(s) had asserted that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003, until they were confronted with the auction notices in June 2008 issued by the competent authority. Soon thereafter, the appellant(s) filed appeal(s) accompanied by the subject application(s) on 19.07.2008. Notably, the respondent(s) did not expressly refute the stand taken by the appellant(s) - that they had no knowledge about passing of order dated 29.12.2003 until June, 2008. Unless that fact was to be refuted, the question of disbelieving the stand taken by the appellant(s) on affidavit, cannot arise and for which reason, the High Court should have shown indulgence to the appellant(s) by condoning the delay in filing the concerned appeal(s). This aspect has been glossed over by the H....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 939
Application for ‘Nil’ rate of tax deduction certificates u/s 197 - assessee-in-default u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed before us that the impugned Certificates had been issued by the Respondent No.2 - Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, after having obtained an approval for issuance of the same at lower rates and not at ‘Nil’ rates after obtaining approval from the Commissioner of Income Tax. In these circumstances, the application for revision u/s 264 of the Act would be in the nature of an Appeal from Caesar to Caesar. As the basis of the impugned Certificates dated 10th September, 2019 being the orders dated 9th September, 2019 of the Income Tax Officer, have been set aside, the impugned Certificates and the order sheet which gives basis of working out the deduction in the impugned Certificat....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 938
Revision u/s 263 - claim for the benefit of section 80-IB(10) - Revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that on merits itself the order under section 263 of the Act was set aside and, therefore, the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 2006-07 passed under section 143 of the Act read with section 263 would not survive - HELD THAT:- Appellant is not able to point out to us whether or not any appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing Revenue’s appeal arising from the order of the Assessing Officer giving effect to order passed under section 263 of the Act. If no appeal is filed against the said order, then prima facie, the entire exercise of admitting this appeal would become academic. Mr.Pinto seeks time to take instructions whether on not any appeal has been filed ....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 937
Reopening of assessment - petitioner seek an opportunity of an oral hearing - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant-writ petitioner themselves seek an opportunity of an oral hearing, and to put forth their additional submissions before the Assessing Authority, suffice it, in so far as the Assessment Year 2005-06 is concerned, to extend the period for passing the re-assessment order by a further period of eight weeks. The Assessing Authority shall inform the appellant-writ petitioner of the date of oral hearing, and it is open to the appellant-writ petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority and put forth their submissions, both oral and written, before him.
- 2019 (11) TMI 936
Revision u/s 264 - first respondent has chosen to reject the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 264, as barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- This Court, is of the view that a decision taken is not communicated, it should be treated that no such decision is taken in the eye of law. However, as it is communicated through the impugned proceedings dated 12.06.2018 that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner was already rejected on 03.03.2016, this Court is of the view that it is better for the first respondent to consider the matter afresh including the question of limitation by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that it is for the first respondent, if satisfied that the revision was filed in time, to consider the revision on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, this ....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 935
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Person/ entity found to be indulging in the activity of providing accommodation entries, may have entered into some genuine transactions as well. It would be essential for the AO of such third party/ parties to find a live-link, i.e. a link which is actionable between the person/ entity indulging in the activity of providing accommodation entries and such third party/ Assessee. The person who has undertaken such financial transaction(s) with such a person/ entity (the bogus entry provider) cannot avoid further scrutiny of such a transaction by laying a challenge to the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147/148 when the re-opening is, otherwise, within the period of limitation. In the present case, the live-link between the said material information, and the formation of the be....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 934
Deduction u/s 80-IA - initial assessment year - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the decision reported in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills [2010 (3) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is applicable to the facts of the present case and thereby allowing the deduction on windmill income u/s 80IA? - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Coimbatore v. Prabhu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 1309 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held Once such initial assessment year has been opted for by the assessee, he shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section. Hence, the term 'initial assessment year' would mean the first year opte....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 933
Addition in respect of receipt for supply of software as held to be royalty income - Addition in royalty income distributor of software products developed by the other companies, and it merely purchased and re-sold the off the shelf software without acquiring or transferring any right to use the copyright in the software. Thus, it could not be possibly have transferred any copyright - HELD THAT:- From the submissions of the Ld. AR it is observed that Avnet Asia and its parent company are all distributors of software and hardware products of various manufacturers, but whether they provide the services which include the royalty component or not, this major aspect was neither verified by the Assessing Officer as well as DRP. AO and the DRP has not looked into the aspect of the assessee and its group companies whether they merely buy and sell....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 932
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - allowability or exemption u/s. u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no new tangible material, which had come into the possession of the AO, therefore, reopening on the same material amounts to mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law. Similarly, the ld.Counsel has placed reliance in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 757 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that it cannot be disputed that the exemption claimed by the AO in respect of the profit on sale /redemption of investment was duly disclosed and the AO has also opined on the merits of taxability of profits of sale / redemption of investment. The income from profit on sale/redemption of investments is now sought to be taxed as income, which had escaped assessment. Thus, in ou....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 931
Addition u/s 68 - principal amount received as unsecured loan (plus interest due thereon) from M/s Matribhumi Fincap India Limited on the ground that the same is a shell company and is having criminal/ prosecution case U/s 220(1) & (2) of Companies Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong - HELD THAT:- Before going into the merits of the case, we calculated as to why the assessee has still not changed the name in the HDFC bank till date of hearing and still he is doing transactions through this bank account. This transaction needs to be examined by the AO. We also noted that the loan amount of ₹ 1 crores taken in two instalments as stated supra has also been credited in this bank account. These facts need to be examined at the level of AO. Therefore, we think it appropriate to send back the disputed issue to the file of AO for....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 930
Computation of capital gain - relevant date for stamp value - agreement to sell entered during the FY 2009-10 and got registered - Actual transfer took place during FY 2011-12 - determination of full sale consideration for a sale of capital asset on the basis of which capital gain required to be computed - HELD THAT:- In the present case, stamp duty valuation authority has not adopted the value. It is the party who agreed to pay stamp duty at an enhanced value of ₹ 6,47,14,285/-. The payments of higher stamp duty at the end of the vendee was not effecting any rights of the assessee. They were not under any financial obligation. The stamp duty valuation authority would not object payment of higher stamp duty at the end of the vendees. Had they disclosed a lower value, probably they would have adopted a higher value according to the r....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 929
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F & deduction u/s 54 - as argued assessee had invested the long term capital gain on purchase of residential plot and remain invested for more than three years - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of ₹ 63,03,005/- which is more than the exemption of ₹ 52,90,424/- claimed by her; and lastly, the assessee made this investment within the prescribed period. This payment was made to the developer Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. Consequent to that, the developer issued allotment letter and also entered into an agreement dated 05.07.2011. As per the agreement the developer was supposed to hand over the possessio....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 928
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - suo moto disallowance by assessee - absence of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer can invoke Rule 8D of I.T. Rules only after establishing with detailed reasons, through a speaking order, that the amount disallowed suo moto by the assessee is not satisfactory. The Assessing Officer having failed to do this, there is justification for applying Rule 8D is completely absent. In the absence of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer on why he invoked the jurisdiction under Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, we are of the view that further disallowance made by the Assessing Officer lacked statutory credentials under section 14A(2) of Income Tax Act.
- 2019 (11) TMI 927
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- We find before CIT(A) the assessee filed certain additional evidences based on which the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO and after considering the same deleted the addition of ₹ 6 lacs being loan obtained from Sh. Tarun Jain ₹ 2 lacs and Mrs. Shivani Jain ₹ 4 lacs on the ground that the assessee has submitted the requisite information which was examined by the AO and no adverse comment regarding their creditworthiness was made by the AO in the remand report. He further noted that a perusal of the bank accounts of the above two persons reveals that there is no credit either by way of cash deposit or transfer immediately before giving loans to the assessee company. Both of them have shown substantial income in their returns of income for which he del....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 926
Disallowance of interest - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance proportionately to the exempt income as well as taxable income for which the unsecured loans were contributed as investment - AR submitted that the entire expenditure cannot not be allocated proportionately to the income earned on two different streams since, the income earned not only on account of capital contribution, but also on account of various services rendered by the firm therefore, requested to make the reasonable disallowance for capital contribution and also for other activities of earning the income - HELD THAT:- We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld.AR and unable to convince with the argument of the Ld.AR, since, the share of profit is directly related to the capital contribution made by the assessee. For other services mentioned by the Ld.AR, the....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 925
Nature of land sold - sale of alleged agricultural land - Lower authorities held that the assessee’s land to be a capital asset u/s 2(14) - HELD THAT:- The assessee’s detailed paper book reveals that the land in issue in sale had been shown as agricultural as per the relevant records as on 26.02.2019. Coupled with this, we find that this is not also the Revenue’s case that the land itself during assessee’s possession had ever been converted to industrial use. Hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT vs. Debbie Alemao and 2. Joaquim Alemao [2010 (9) TMI 560 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holds that it is nowhere necessary for an assessee to prove carrying out actual agricultural activity of the land in issue is agricultural. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 924
Benefit of exemptions u/s.11 - Charitable purpose u/s 2(15) - planned development in a particular region - whether the activity of the assessee company is in the nature of ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’? - whether the nature of activity is commercial and akin to ‘trade, commerce or business’ etc.? - HELD THAT:- The object of the assessee authority is to engage in advancing of objects of public utility is not in dispute. The dispute relates to the second limb i.e. whether such object of advancement of general public utility also acquires the character of trade, commerce or business with commercial intent or whether the authority exists solely for advancement of object of public utility and do not exist with a motive to make profit in a commercial spirit. As observed, the assessee is a Go....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 923
Revision u/s 263 - claim of exemption u/s.54F - as per CIT necessary enquiry were not conducted and whether cost of interior decoration was allowable or not, these were not specifically enquired into by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment - HELD THAT:- The issue on which 263 jurisdiction was assumed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, to those issues, the Assessing Officer has enquired into and replies were also filed in detail by the assessee in response thereto. In such scenario, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax could not have assumed the jurisdiction u/s.263. That further, regarding contentions of the Ld. DR that section 54F pertains to the cost of acquisition of the new assets and it does not cover the cost of interior decoration, in this regard, as evident from the agreement entered into between the promoter a....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 922
Lower yield declared by the assessee - excessive consumption of electricity / power / furnace - variation in consumption of electricity, furnace oil vis-à-vis production of finished goods - yield declared by the assessee and information regarding yield declared by other assesses, as received from the DCIT-1(2), Raipur was compared with reference to the uniform and standard yield adopted by the Assessing Officer and the result of the comparison so made are on record - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had made exercise to bring out the percentage of yield declared by the other assessee engaged in similar line of business and nowhere the yield was 89%. AO also gave no basis for its calculation of the yield at 89%. There was no scientific or logical basis in the exercise conducted by the AO. The submissions made by the assessee, were also summarily ....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 921
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assigning proper reasons and justification - Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- AO is in possession of tangible incriminating material that assessee had received loans/advances from its subsidiary company namely M/s Empee Distilleries Limited in which assessee held 41.78% shares and the said subsidiary company possessed accumulated profits to the tune of ₹ 6,69,15,506/- , during year under consideration , thus, the assessee has infringed provisions of Section 2(22)(e) - assessee on its part has not included in its return of income , the aforesaid amount as deemed dividend as its income chargeable to tax being hit by provision of Section 2(22)(e) - AO might have received aforesaid tangible information as to escapement of income chargeable to tax from records itself before it but the ....... + More
........
|
