|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 948 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1209
Issues involved: Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging Tribunal's order on confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
Issue A: Tribunal's justification in holding confiscation of goods and penalty imposition as unjustified despite misdeclaration and violation of Customs Act.
The respondent, a 100% export oriented unit, imported goods declared as 'Transformer Scrap' but Revenue claimed they were old used transformers. Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation and penalty. Tribunal allowed respondent's appeal stating they were allowed to import old/damaged transformers. Counsel for Revenue challenged Tribunal's order citing a similar case where the appeal was dismissed for lack of legal question.
Issue B: Tribunal's justification in setting aside confiscation and penalty for misdeclaration of imported goods.
Tribunal held that the imported goods were permissible old/damaged transformers, not new or usable ones. No duty demand was confirmed against the respondent as they were eligible to import such goods.
Issue C: Tribunal's passing of judgment without proper reasons and disagreement with expert opinion.
Tribunal's judgment lacked proper reasoning and disagreed with the expert's opinion favoring the appellant-Department without sufficient explanation.
Issue D: Tribunal's passing of judgment without specific findings on the original order's interference.
Tribunal's judgment lacked specific findings on why the original order deserved interference, substituting the adjudicating authority's findings without proper justification.
The appeal was dismissed by the High Court following a previous judgment where a similar appeal was rejected for lack of legal questions.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1208
Issues Involved:
The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the ITAT order for the assessment year 1994-95 raises questions regarding the real value of a property, burden of proof on the assessee, confrontation of seized documents, and the correctness of the ITAT order.
Real Value of Property:
The assessment was based on seized documents indicating payments exceeding the disclosed value of the property. The assessing officer treated the investment as unexplained, considering the property's location and size. Despite the appellant's denial, the assessing officer concluded the investment was undisclosed, leading to additional tax and penalty proceedings.
Burden of Proof:
The CIT(A) emphasized the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence supporting her position, despite multiple opportunities in various proceedings. The appellant's negative approach was deemed contrary to the facts on record, leading to the affirmation of the assessing officer's decision.
Confrontation of Seized Documents:
The tribunal highlighted the absence of confrontation of original documents with the assessee, relying solely on photocopies. The tribunal criticized the assessing officer and CIT(A) for confirming the addition based on photocopies, emphasizing the lack of evidentiary value in law for photocopies as secondary evidence.
Validity of ITAT Order:
The tribunal concluded that the photocopies lacked evidentiary value and criticized the reliance on them without establishing the original documents' existence or authenticity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit due to the absence of substantial evidence and reliance on photocopies without proper verification.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1207
Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of certain receipts from profits for deduction u/s 80IB.
2. Eligibility of plating and service charges for deduction u/s 80IB.
3. Eligibility of scrap sales for deduction u/s 80IB.
4. Eligibility of insurance claim for deduction u/s 80IB.
5. Eligibility of interest from customers for delayed payments for deduction u/s 80IB.
Summary:
1. Exclusion of Certain Receipts from Profits for Deduction u/s 80IB:
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's recomputation of deduction u/s 80IB by excluding receipts such as plating and service charges, scrap sales, insurance claims, and interest from customers for delayed payments. The AO, referencing Supreme Court decisions, excluded these receipts, arguing they did not have a direct nexus with the profits derived from the industrial undertaking.
2. Eligibility of Plating and Service Charges for Deduction u/s 80IB:
The Tribunal noted that plating and service charges were earned by utilizing the plant and machinery of the undertaking, thus forming part of the profit derived from the business. The Tribunal referenced its own previous decision and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Eltek SGS P Ltd, concluding that such income is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
3. Eligibility of Scrap Sales for Deduction u/s 80IB:
The Tribunal held that income from scrap sales, generated during the manufacturing process, has a direct nexus to the business of the undertaking. This issue was also covered in the Tribunal's previous orders, affirming that such income is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
4. Eligibility of Insurance Claim for Deduction u/s 80IB:
The Tribunal acknowledged the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT V/s M/s Pfizer Ltd, which held that insurance claims related to stock-in-trade are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. However, since the nature of the insurance claim was not verified, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to ascertain whether the claim was for stock-in-trade damage.
5. Eligibility of Interest from Customers for Delayed Payments for Deduction u/s 80IB:
The Tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT V/s Advance Detergents Ltd and the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Nirma Industries Ltd, concluded that interest received due to delayed payments by customers has a direct nexus with the sale proceeds. Thus, it is part and parcel of the profit derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific issues remitted back to the AO for further verification. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 30.09.2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1206
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Genuineness of the transactions related to the purchase and sale of shares.
3. Treatment of declared capital gains as artificial/bogus.
4. Jurisdictional issues concerning assessments made under Section 153A.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 153A:
The assessee argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was bad in law as no evidence or material indicating any undisclosed income was discovered during the search. Additional grounds of appeal were admitted as legal grounds, not requiring any investigation of facts. The Tribunal agreed to admit these grounds, emphasizing that all facts were on record and the material found or seized was a matter of record.
2. Genuineness of Transactions Related to Purchase and Sale of Shares:
The Revenue's case was based on the assertion that the assessee's purchase of shares was not genuine, and the declared capital gains were artificial. The Assessing Officer (AO) provided several reasons, including the timing of transactions, non-payment of costs immediately, and the lack of brokerage or service charges. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's conclusions were based on suspicion and conjecture rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including share certificates, broker notes, and Demat account statements, which confirmed the transactions.
3. Treatment of Declared Capital Gains as Artificial/Bogus:
The AO treated the capital gains as bogus and assessed them under the head 'income from other sources.' The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of both the purchase and sale of shares. The Tribunal referenced several case laws where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that off-market transactions are not illegal and that suspicion cannot replace factual evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had not provided any contrary evidence to disprove the transactions.
4. Jurisdictional Issues Concerning Assessments Made Under Section 153A:
The assessee argued that assessments under Section 153A were void in the cases of Smt. Nilanjana Matkar and Kunal Matkar as no material was found or seized against them during the search. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the assessee received relief on merits. However, it was noted that Section 153A assessments are in addition to earlier assessments under Section 143(3), and there must be a direct nexus between the evidence found during the search and the undisclosed income assessed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee, holding that the purchase and sale of shares were genuine and the gains obtained on the sale of shares should be taxed under the head 'capital gain.' The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's case was based on suspicion and conjecture without any concrete evidence to disprove the transactions. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 24th September 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1205
Issues involved: Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 1998-1999.
1. Challenge to Tribunal's Decision on Suppressed Sale and Deletion of Additions:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding determination of suppressed sale of bread and deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal found that the AO's additions were based on estimation without any supporting evidence, leading to the deletion of certain additions. The Tribunal noted the absence of material to support the AO's estimations and held that the AO's additions were not based on any evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of certain additions made by the CIT(A).
2. Challenge to Reduction of Disallowance of Expenses:
The appellant also contested the Tribunal's decision to reduce the addition of disallowance of expenses made by the AO from 20% to 10% of the total expenses. The Tribunal observed that the AO's estimation of expenses was not supported by any evidence and that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition based on lack of evidence. The Tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of expenses.
3. Unilateral Estimation of Production Figures by AO:
The Court agreed with the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the AO could not unilaterally estimate production figures without cogent reasons or comparable cases, especially when consistent wastage percentages had been accepted in previous assessment years. The Court found that the AO's unilateral estimations were not justified in the absence of supporting evidence or reasoning.
4. Discrepancy in Sale Price Estimations by AO:
The Court noted a discrepancy in the AO's estimation of sale prices for different assessment years, highlighting inconsistencies in the AO's approach. The Court pointed out that if the AO had estimated a lower sale price for a previous assessment year, he could not have estimated a higher price for the current assessment year. This inconsistency raised doubts about the AO's estimations and decision-making process.
5. Dismissal of Appeal:
Ultimately, the Court found that the factual findings by the final fact-finding authority were not perverse or contrary to the record. As no substantial question of law arose in the proceedings, the Court dismissed the appeal for lacking merit. The Court concluded that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained based on the lack of evidence and reasoning in the estimation process.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1204
Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of service charges paid to M/s. Jay Infra Trade Pvt. Ltd. u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of 1/7th of total expenses on account of labour contract charges, repair and maintenance charges, and miscellaneous expenses for the Assessment Year 2004-05. Summary:Issue 1: Disallowance of Service Charges u/s 40A(2)(b)Both these appeals concern the disallowance of Rs. 11,01,535/- for each of the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, paid to M/s. Jay Infra Trade Pvt. Ltd., by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the service charges excessive and unreasonable, allowing only Rs. 98,465/- and disallowing the rest. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, holding that no imaginary attempt could be made to split the payment which was otherwise found to be genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision, emphasizing judicial discipline and consistency with past decisions, including those of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench ITAT Ahmedabad and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s. Paras Laminates (186 ITR 722). Issue 2: Disallowance of 1/7th of Total Expenses for AY 2004-05The AO disallowed Rs. 13,97,687/-, being 1/7th of the total claim of Rs. 97,83,809/- on account of labour contract charges, repair and maintenance charges, and miscellaneous expenses, due to the assessee's inability to produce bills and vouchers for verification. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowance, noting that the expenses had decreased compared to the preceding year and were subject to TDS. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) granted relief without proper verification and remanded the issue back to the first appellate authority for a de novo decision, ensuring reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. Conclusion:The appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2003-04 is dismissed, whereas for Assessment Year 2004-05 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1203
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the termination order issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. Whether the termination order was stigmatic or punitive.
3. Whether the petitioner was deemed confirmed after the initial probation period.
4. Impact of granting increments on the assessment of the petitioner's service.
Summary:
1. Legality of the termination order issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir:
The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 03.07.2003 issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, arguing it was illegal and without jurisdiction as it was not issued by the Governor. The Supreme Court held that the order was valid as it was issued by the competent authority, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, based on the recommendation of the High Court, and should be treated as such, even though it was not specifically issued in the name of the Governor.
2. Whether the termination order was stigmatic or punitive:
The petitioner argued that the termination order was stigmatic and punitive as it was based on alleged misconduct and no opportunity of hearing was given. The Supreme Court found that the order was not stigmatic or punitive. It was based on the assessment of the petitioner's unsatisfactory service during the probation period. The Court cited precedents, including *Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI Of Medical Sciences* and *State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh*, to support that mentioning unsatisfactory service in the termination order does not make it stigmatic.
3. Whether the petitioner was deemed confirmed after the initial probation period:
The petitioner claimed that he should be deemed confirmed as there was no order of extension of his probation period after the initial two years. The Supreme Court referred to Rule 15 of the Jammu & Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules and the case of *Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P.*, concluding that the petitioner continued on probation as no confirmation order was issued. The Court held that the High Court was justified in discharging the petitioner during the probation period based on unsatisfactory service.
4. Impact of granting increments on the assessment of the petitioner's service:
The petitioner argued that the granting of increments indicated satisfactory service. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the mere granting of yearly increments does not imply satisfactory service. The High Court had the authority to scrutinize the petitioner's records and decide on confirmation, extension of probation, or termination based on overall performance and conduct.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The termination order was upheld as valid, non-stigmatic, and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and conduct among judicial officers.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1202
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of bad debts claimed.
2. Deletion of addition by holding waived loan as capital receipt.
3. Deletion of addition on account of gross profit difference.
Summary:
1. Bad Debts Claim:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,76,780/- made on account of bad debts claimed in respect of M/s Packwell without considering that there was no amount outstanding as on 1.4.04. The AO observed that the amount was transferred to M/s Punch & Pack, making them responsible for collection. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, holding it as a bad debt u/s 36. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in T.R.F. Ltd. Vs CIT 323 ITR 397, stating that it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off in the accounts of the assessee.
2. Waived Loan as Capital Receipt:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,12,304/- by holding it as a capital receipt, not liable to tax, despite the AO's stance that the waived loan by GSFC should be treated as a revenue receipt u/s 41(1). The CIT(A) held the receipt as capital in nature. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision, citing various precedents, including Chief CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. 254 ITR 434 (SC) and CIT v. Chetan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 0770 (Guj), which clarified that for u/s 41(1) to apply, the liability must have been allowed as a deduction in earlier years, which was not the case here.
3. Gross Profit Difference:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,81,671/- on account of gross profit difference, arguing that the assessee inflated certain expenditures post-survey to nullify additional income disclosure. The AO found discrepancies in the primary records and rejected the books, applying the pre-survey GP rate to post-survey sales. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the variations were less than 1%. However, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, confirming the application of the same profit rates to post-survey period sales due to the lack of satisfactory explanation for lower profits in the post-survey period.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the AO's decision on the gross profit difference while rejecting the Revenue's grounds on bad debts and waived loan as capital receipt. The order was pronounced in open Court on 30/9/10.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1201
Issues involved: Assessment of tax on alleged sale of cotton by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05.
Summary:
The assessee, a firm engaged in manufacturing handloom cloth from cotton and cotton yarn, contested the imposition of tax by the tribunal for the alleged sale of cotton itself. The assessee claimed that the imported cotton was used to produce khadi material, which is tax-exempt in the State of U.P. The department argued that the cotton was directly sold without being converted into yarn and khadi material.
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee provided evidence, including a supplementary affidavit and registers, to demonstrate that the purchased cotton was indeed converted into cotton yarn and khadi material. The court noted that the assessment order acknowledged the evidence presented by the assessee but concluded that it had not been closely examined. Therefore, the court remanded the matter back to the tribunal for a reevaluation of the evidence on record to determine whether the cotton was genuinely converted into khadi material. The tribunal was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case based on the existing documents and to issue a specific finding within three months.
In conclusion, the court set aside the tribunal's order and disposed of the revision accordingly.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1200
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after condoning the delay. (Citation: 2010 (9) TMI 1200 - SC)
-
2010 (9) TMI 1199
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding substantial questions of law related to profit calculation under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) and deduction u/s 80HHC.
The appellant raised several substantial questions of law challenging the ITAT's decision regarding the profit calculation under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions included whether the ITAT was correct in not considering the total sale consideration inclusive of face value of DEPB and premium amount as profit chargeable u/s 28(iiid) and 28(iiie), and whether the profit on transfer of DEPB entitlement should be considered as the entire amount inclusive of premium. Additionally, the ITAT's interpretation of the term "profit" in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) was questioned, specifically regarding the deduction of face value of DEPB from sale price for profit calculation and the requirement of any artificial cost for the determination of deduction u/s 80HHC.
The appellant's counsel referred to previous court orders favoring the revenue in similar cases and argued that the matter at hand is covered by those orders. Citing specific cases like CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings and CIT v. F.C. Sondhi, the counsel highlighted the relevance of these precedents in the current appeal. The court noted that the matter aligns with previous decisions and decided to dispose of the appeal accordingly without issuing notice to the respondent. However, the respondent was granted liberty to approach the court if they had any grievances against the order.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1198
Issues involved: Disallowance under u/s 40(a)(ia) for labour charges and club expenses for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Assessment Year 2005-06:
The appellant contested the disallowance of &8377; 67,86,866 u/s 40(a)(ia) for labour charges. The appellant argued that recent Tribunal decisions support the deductibility of direct expenses like labour charges u/s 28(i) and not u/s 30 to 38. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this plea, as it had not been examined before. The first ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The appellant also challenged the disallowance of &8377; 12,00,000 for club expenses. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim due to lack of business advantage and club functionality. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings but remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the admissibility of the deduction based on business expediency. The second ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Assessment Year 2006-07:
The appellant contested the disallowance of &8377; 3,05,000 for club expenses, which was based on the CIT(A)'s order for the previous year. The Tribunal remitted this grievance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in line with the observations made for the earlier assessment year. Ground no. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The appellant did not make specific submissions for grounds 3 and 4, leading to their dismissal as not pressed. Ground no. 5, being general, was dismissed as well. The appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters related to disallowance under u/s 40(a)(ia) and club expenses being remitted for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).
-
2010 (9) TMI 1197
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, citing a Full Bench judgment that such appeals are not maintainable. The appellant was given liberty to take further legal steps.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1196
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rectified assessments dated 6/3/2009 u/s 37(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 read with section 109 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Clarification provided by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, regarding the notification dated 3/1/2003 issued u/s 9(3) of the Act 1993.
3. Dismissal of the revision petition by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, against the rectified assessment.
4. Consequential demands and Bakijai proceedings.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Rectified Assessments:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture, sale, and supply of P.V.C. Pipes and Plastic Water Tanks, challenged the rectified assessments dated 6/3/2009 u/s 37(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 read with section 109 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The assessments were based on the interpretation that the notification dated 3/1/2003 was effective from 1/5/2001, thus invalidating the concessional tax rate of 4.4% applied by the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-2005. The rectified assessments demanded an additional tax amount of Rs. 6,64,84,414/-.
2. Clarification by the Commissioner of Taxes:
The Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, clarified that the notification dated 3/1/2003 was intended to be effective from 1/5/2001, which was contested by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the notification should be valid for three years from the date of its issue, i.e., 3/1/2003, and not retrospectively from 1/5/2001. The court examined the statutory provisions and concluded that the notification's language and the legislative intent indicated that the exemption/reduction in tax rate was meant to be effective from 1/5/2001.
3. Dismissal of the Revision Petition:
The petitioner's revision petition against the rectified assessment was dismissed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, on 24/9/2009. The court upheld this dismissal, noting that the petitioner had availed the benefit of the concessional tax rate for the period from 1/5/2001 to 28/2/2003, and thus, the notification's retrospective application did not prejudice any vested rights.
4. Consequential Demands and Bakijai Proceedings:
Following the rectified assessment, a demand notice for Rs. 64,84,414/- was issued, and Bakijai proceedings were initiated. The court found that the petitioner's interpretation of the notification would result in anomalies and complications for past transactions. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the rectified assessments, the clarification by the Commissioner of Taxes, and the consequential demands.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the notification dated 3/1/2003 was validly interpreted to be effective from 1/5/2001, and the rectified assessments and consequential demands were lawful. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed with no costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1195
The appellate tribunal rejected the appeal on rebate claim for exports as it is not maintainable before them. The Revenue can seek remedy in the appropriate forum.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1194
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the validity of section 147-148 notice and assessment, determination of previous year for taxation, estimation of cash receipts, application of gross profit rate, allowance of deductions, additions under various sections, charging of interest, treatment of firm as unregistered, and jurisdiction of assessment actions.
For Asst. Year 1985-86:
1. The CIT(Appeals) erred in holding the section 147-148 notice and assessment as valid.
2. Dispute over the previous year for taxation - Financial Year vs. July to June.
3. Challenge regarding the completed assessment of the previous year.
4. Disagreement on the assessment being an over-pitched assessment.
5. Dispute over the estimation of cash and cheque receipts.
6. Application of gross profit rate on cheque receipts only.
7. Argument for applying 8% net profit to total receipts.
8. Claim for deduction of expenses incurred for vacating occupants.
9. Issue of additions under various sections and the year of search.
10. Dispute over the charging of interest without mention in the assessment order.
11. Disagreement on taxing the firm as unregistered.
12. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the assessment order.
13. Dispute over the calculation of income from construction business.
For Asst. Year 1987-88:
1. Challenge to the validity of section 147-148 notice and assessment.
2. Dispute over the Assessing Officer's resort to section 154 for assessment.
3. Disagreement on the estimated sale consideration and actual receipts.
4. Issue of alleged receipt of on-money without supporting evidence.
5. Dispute over completion of floors and justification for adding on-money receipts.
6. Application of gross profit rate and allowance of expenditures.
7. Dispute over the timing of final conveyance deeds and assessment basis.
8. Taxing the firm as unregistered and charging of interest.
9. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the assessment order.
In the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad addressed the appeals filed by the assessee for Asst. Years 1985-86 and 1987-88. Various grounds were raised, including challenges to the validity of notices, estimation of receipts, application of profit rates, allowance of deductions, and jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including seized documents, and directed the Assessing Officer to apply a net profit rate of 15% on cash receipts for the assessment years, rather than taxing the entire sum of 'on money' received in cash. This decision partially allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for both years.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1193
The Bombay High Court quashed the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and remanded the case back to the Tribunal to decide two issues afresh: (i) entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., and (ii) entitlement to benefits of circulars regarding service tax liability for sub-contractors. Both Central Excise Appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1192
Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Summary:Issue 1: Confirmation of Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961The assessee's appeal challenges the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 4,85,604 by the CIT(A) u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that it had sufficient interest-free funds and had not invested interest-bearing funds in tax-free instruments. The AO observed that there was intermingling of funds and invoked Section 14A, disallowing Rs. 4,85,604 as it was related to earning tax-free income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, referencing the cases of Daga Capital and Cheminvest, and directed the AO to compute the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D. Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962The assessee contended that Rule 8D, applied by the AO, is not applicable for the assessment year 2006-07 as it is effective from the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., which clarified that Rule 8D is applicable prospectively from the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not established a nexus between the expenditure and the exempted income but had applied Rule 8D incorrectly. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Conclusion:The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the AO is instructed to re-evaluate the applicability of Section 14A and make a fresh decision in accordance with the relevant legal guidelines. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 15.9.2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1191
Issues Involved:
The issue in this case is whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in accepting the valuation made by the assessing officer as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) without considering the materials produced by the assessee.
Judgment Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta considered the matter at hand, focusing on the key issue of whether the Learned Tribunal's acceptance of the valuation without considering the materials produced by the assessee was justified. The Learned Counsel for the revenue acknowledged that formal notice to the Respondents was unnecessary.
Upon reviewing the impugned judgment and order of the Learned Tribunal, it was observed that the assessee had argued against the valuation arrived at by the assessing officer, claiming it was improper. However, the Learned Tribunal seemingly failed to consider this argument. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required reconsideration.
As a result, the operation of the judgment and order was suspended, and the case was remanded for fresh hearing by the Learned Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to reevaluate the materials presented earlier and make a fresh decision, free from any prior influence. If a change in the judgment was deemed necessary, it was to be done impartially.
The Court set a timeline of two months for the completion of this process from the date of communication of the order. All parties involved were directed to act based on a signed copy of the operative portion of the order, adhering to the usual undertakings.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1190
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing cross objections.
2. Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of income from undisclosed sources under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Cross Objections:
The assessee filed duplicate cross objections due to a delay of 44 to 50 days, attributing the delay to the illiteracy of the servant who received the notice. After considering the rival submissions, the tribunal condoned the delay, concluding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the cross objections within the stipulated time.
2. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The assessee argued that the original assessment was completed on 31.07.2001, and all necessary disclosures were made. The reassessment proceedings initiated after four years based on a change of opinion were not permissible under the proviso to Section 147. The tribunal referenced several cases, including CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, which emphasized that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion and must be supported by tangible material. The tribunal concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
3. Addition of Income from Undisclosed Sources Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition made by the A.O. as income from undisclosed sources on account of alleged bogus accommodation entries. The tribunal noted that the original assessment accepted the long-term capital gains (LTCG) shown by the assessee, and all necessary evidence regarding the purchase and sale of shares was provided. The tribunal found no new material to justify the reassessment and emphasized that the A.O. had not brought any evidence to prove the transactions were bogus. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the duplicate cross objections filed by the assessee. The tribunal partly allowed the other cross objections filed by the assessee, concluding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
............
|
9911796707
