|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1478 Records
-
2016 (3) TMI 1368
Reopening of assessment - bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Orders of the Tribunal including that of the Unique Metal Industries [2015 (10) TMI 2753 - ITAT NEW DELHI] the AO had recorded similarly worded reasons and name of the parties form which the assessee alleged to have made bogus purchases were also same ex cept the amount mentioned therein in the reasons recorded in the tabular form are same as in the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we have no alternative but to follow the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries [supra] and other as mentioned hereinabove.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings as well a s issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid and the same was void ab initio and thus we quash the same and subsequently the assessment order passed in pursuance thereto is also quashed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee are allowed.
Bogus purchases - Addition of 20% purchases made by the assessee during F.Y. 2005-06 pertaining to A.Y 2006-07 - HELD THAT:- On specific query from the Bench, the ld. DR could not bring to our notice any cogent or relevant material or evidence which may compel us to take a different view which could lead us to not to follow the decision of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries [supra] and other relevant orders. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries [supra] which deleted the addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) being 20% of the purchases made by the assessee during the relevant F.Y. Consequently, the grounds of the assessee on merits are also allowed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1367
Disallowance u/s 14A - admission of additional ground - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2009 (2) TMI 240 - ITAT DELHI-B] the additional ground raised by assessee is allowed. Accordingly, it is held that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable in the case of assessee. Therefore, the addition stands deleted.
Provision for stock holding and other charges - HELD THAT:- As submitted that the expenditure on this head of account was actually paid by the assessee but inadvertently shown it as provision. Ld. counsel further submitted that this expenditure has been allowed in earlier years. Ld. counsel further submitted that this expenditure should be allowed in terms of section 43B also. He further submitted that assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to explain the facts in this regard.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We are of the opinion that the facts in regard to this issue needs to be re-marshaled. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of AO for deciding the issue de novo in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1366
Rectification u/s 154 - sale proceeds of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. was considered in A.Y 2007-08, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly confirmed the addition in A.Y 2001-02 - HELD THAT:- Tripex Overseas Ltd. shares were purchased in A.Y 2006-07 and were sold in A.Y 2007-08, therefore, sale proceeds of the shares should be brought to tax net in A.Y 2007-08 and not in A.Y 2001-02. To rectify the mistake apparent from the record, we direct the AO to verify the order passed by him for A.Y 2007-08 to ensure that there is an addition on account of sale of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. and if he finds that the sale proceeds of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. had already been taxed in A.Y 2007-08, the same should not be again added in A.Y 2001-02 under consideration.
Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1365
Denial of exemption of claim made by assessee u/s 54B - investment made in the name of wife and bhabhi - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the instead of son the part investment has been made in the name of his wife, therefore, we agree with the contention of learned AR that investment in the name of wife was eligible u/s 54B of the Act. However, the investment in the name of his Bhabhi is not eligible for exemption u/s 54B, therefore, taxable capital gain in the case of the assessee is restricted to ₹ 2,02,955/-.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1364
Disallowance u/s 14A - securities held as stock in trade - HELD THAT:- However in view of the clear finding given by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we found ourselves bound by the said judgement and hold that since the assessee bank is holding the securities as its stock in trade the disallowance under section 14A cannot be made.
If the shares are held that as stock in trade and not as investment then even the disallowance under section under rule 8D will be Nil as rule 8D (2)(i) will be confined to only direct expenses for earning the tax exempt income. In the present case also since there are no direct expenses incurred in earning the dividend the disallowance will come to nil. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition of bad debts recovered - whether when bad debts were written off in any of the precious years, no claim of deduction was made or allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- There is no denying the fact that the details of these amounts recovered were filed before the lower authorities. A copy of the same has also been filed before us. The assessee being a bank is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, the provisions of section 41(4) are also applicable on such debts that are recovered during the year which have been reduced from the income in any of the earlier years. In view of all these, we are inclined to send this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify with the details filed by the assessee whether any claim of any such nature, which reduces the income of the assessee with regard to these recoveries, if made in any of the earlier years the disallowance has to be sustained however in case no such benefit has been taken by the assessee out of these amounts recoverable in any of the earlier years the disallowance should be deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance as prior period expenses - appellant had not claimed any expenses relating to prior years in the computation of income - HELD THAT:- As it has been held in earlier year by the I.T.A.T. that looking into the regular system of accounting being followed by the assessee, an expenditure either has to be allowed or not to be allowed. In the present year also, both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) has indulged in estimating the disallowance. Nowhere any of these authorities have been able to pinpoint which expenses are prior period in nature. A disallowance has not to be made just for the sake of making disallowance. We do not appreciate the way the issue has been handled by he lower authorities. The assessee has provided all details which were asked for by them. The order and dictate of I.T.A.T. were before them. Even then they did not bother to analyze the details filed by the assessee. In the earlier year, in the proceedings set aside by the I.T.A.T., the Assessing Officer restricted the disallowance only to stationery and miscellaneous expenses. This year also, same has been done on an estimated basis. This is not the right approach. Looking into the fact that the only dispute remaining is with regard to stationery and miscellaneous expenses, we are inclined to delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in this regard.
Income chargeable to tax being the increase in the credit balance outstanding in blocked accounts of customers (under NOSTRO balances) - Whether the said amount has not been written back in the profit and loss account as any remission of liability by the appellant bank? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the case are that there are certain unclaimed balances lying in the account of the assessee on account of NOSTRO Blocked accounts. This is also undisputed that the same nature of amount was taxed as income in the earlier year by the Assessing Officer which got confirmed till the level of ITAT. However we are in agreement with the argument of the assessee that there is a circular of the RBI No.RBI/2013-14/527, DBOD No. DEAF Cell.BC.101/30.01.002/2013-14, dated 21.3.2014, whereby these kind of unclaimed balances are to be transferred to a government account under the ‘Depositors Education and Awareness Fund’. This circular was not available to the I.T.A.T. while adjudicating the similar issue in assessment year 2007-08. In view of the same we are very clear that since no balance outstanding as on date is there in assessee’s account in respect of the said amount, the said amount cannot be considered as ‘income’ in nature. No addition on this account can be made. In view of this we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. The ground of assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of depreciation on ATM - @ 60% - HELD THAT:- There are a number of judgments of various High Courts where the ATM is held to be computer and depreciation is allowed @ 60%. The grounds raised by the Department are dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1363
Offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Effect of amendment - amendment in the Act by the Central Amendment Act 34 of 1976 whereby Section 16A was added and under the said section, only a fine is leviable, Rigorous imprisonment is dispensed with - HELD THAT:- In ’T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another’ [1982 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that since the amendment was beneficial to the accused persons, it can be applied even with respect to earlier cases as well which are pending in the Court.
We have no doubt in mind that the aforesaid judgment squarely applies thereon - This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified by imposing fine of ₹ 50,000/- which shall be deposited within two months with the trial court. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall be discharged.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1362
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - penalty order barred by limitation - Bar of limitation for imposing penalties u/s 275 - HELD THAT:- As decided in COSMO FILMS LTD. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) , DELHI. [2011 (7) TMI 1355 - ITAT DELHI] as per section 275(1A) of the Act, therefore, the limitation provided there-under concerns cases where the assessment order or revision is under appeal at the relevant stage and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty passed before the appellate order is received by the Department or order of revision is passed. In such a situation, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty may be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to the appellate order or the revisional order.
In the present case, no order either imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty stands passed. That being so, the provisions of section 275(1A) are not applicable.
Penalty order is hit by the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Going by the para-meters laid down therein in the said section, the penalty order is clearly beyond the limitation provided therein. - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1361
Deduction u/s 35D in respect of share issue expenses incurred - “industrial units” - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] amendment had been brought about to extend the benefit of deduction u/s 35D to the service sector also. Banks cannot fall under the definition of “industrial units”. If the assessees like banks were to fall under the definition of “Industrial units”, there would not have been any necessity for amending the Act to include service sector. Since the amendment extending the benefit to service sector and made effective only from the assessment year 2009-10 and, the banks are coming under service sector, the benefit can be extended from the assessment year 2009-10 only to the extent of setting up of a new unit for five successive years. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee has set up a new unit or not and if so, he is directed to allow the benefit from 2009-10 onwards. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income from foreign branches - whether to be included in the total income and only double taxation relief s contemplated as per the agreement is allowable ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo would be included in the return of income of the assessee in India and whatever taxes paid by the branches in foreign countries, credit of such taxes shall only be given. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] in view of the decision of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that Rule 8D is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09, when the Act has prescribed a method for quantifying the disallowance, the same cannot be overlooked. Since Rule 8D is not applicable prior to the assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to work out the disallowance @ 2%. However, since Rule 8D is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards, the disallowance should be made based on the prescribed method quantified by the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance under section 14A and computed under Rule 8D, we confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
Rate of depreciation on computers - whether Automated Teller Machines are substantially in the nature of computers and hence, are eligible for deduction at the rate of 60% and not at 15% as applicable to other normal plant and machinery? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% to ATMs. UPS attached to the computers are part of computer systems and eligible for depreciation @ 60%.
Advances of the Rural Branch is the criteria for computation of eligible deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) and individual nature of advances cannot be the basis of computation - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) is based on the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister by presenting the budget of 1978-79. We have also gone through the intention under which sec.36(1)(viia) was brought to statute book and there is no intention to support rural branches and being so, only advances made for improving the rural economy to be considered for eligible deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the finding of the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Allowable revenue expenditure - Claims raised against the bank, in the normal course, considering the various circumstances provision is being made by the bank and considering the business risk, such provisions are allowable deductions - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] If any expense is required to be allowed, it is for the assessee to prove the nature of the expenditure and its relation to its business. In the present case, the assessee has not able to prove the nature of the expenses. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ground raised by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
MAT u/s 115JB applicability - HELD THAT:- Provisions of sec.115JB of the I.T. Act are not applicable to the assessee bank as it is not a company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956
Claim of broken period interest paid on purchase of securities - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] interest received by an assessee, from transferees for broken period is included under the head ‘business income’, amounts paid by the assessee to the transferors for broken periods could not have been disallowed.
Depreciation on securities at the time of shifting from AFS to HTM - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] we uphold the claim of the assessee and direct the AO to allow depreciation / fall in value of investment in Government Securities including those classified under HTM category. No doubt the value in opening stock in the next year would correspondingly be adjusted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee
Claim towards deduction of bad debts written off - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, besides debiting the P&L a/c and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debts, the assessee bank had simultaneously obliterated the said provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances/debtors on the assets side of the balance sheet and consequently, at the end of the year, the figure of loans and advances/debtors was shown as net of the provision - Therefore, assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Contention that it is imperative for the assessee-bank to close the individual account of each debtor in its books and a mere reduction in the “loans and advances account” or debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not sufficient, is not sustainable - Apprehension that if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of its debtors, it may result in claiming deduction twice over is not correct - It is always open to the AO to call for details of individual debtor’s account if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction twice over
Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- Allowable deduction u/s.36(I)(viia) of the Act is @ 10% of the 'total average aggregate advances' made by the rural branches and not on the incremental average aggregate advances, as contemplated by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeals in this regard are allowed
Deduction of bad debts - HELD THAT:- Option exercised by the assessee that it can claims deduction on doubtful debts as per option (b) i.e. 7.5% of Gross Total Income and 10% of aggregate average rural advances, the Assessing Officer has rightly worked out the allowable deduction, which is less than that of the provision made by the assessee as doubtful debts, allowed the deduction of bad debts for all assessment years and remaining balance was brought to tax. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the addition made by the AO for all the above assessment years.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1360
Issuance of rectified Form C and F - no online procedure for rectification of such declarations - An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar wherein it has been stated that the modules for online rectification of Form C is to be customized for implementation in Bihar with effect from April, 2016.
HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, we do not feel that any further directions are called for in the present matter.
Application disposed off.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1359
Prohibition on respondent no. 1-Company from holding its Annual General Meeting - alleged non-disclosure to its investors/shareholders true and correct state of affairs in its Annual Report and Director's Report for the year 2014-15 - violation of Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Principle of corporate democracy - HELD THAT:- The principle of corporate democracy requires that meeting of shareholders should normally not be interdicted.
Reliance can be placed in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA VERSUS ESCORTS LTD. [1985 (12) TMI 289 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that The holder of the majority of the stock of a corporation have the power to appoint, by election, Directors of their choice and the power to regulate them by a resolution for their removal. And, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain the holding of a general meeting to remove a director and appoint another.
Thus, keeping in view the fact that AGM has already been held, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1358
Addition u/s 68 - Unsecured cash credit - HELD THAT:- The assessee has produced the copies of contract note, money was received through banking channel from sale of shares, purchases of earlier years were not doubted. Dematting was done by the assessee, sale was affected, thus, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of CIT(Appeals), thus, it was rightly held that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and also the resultant disallowance of commission at the rate of 5% made by the AO
Even otherwise, for making addition u/s 68 of the Act, there has to be credit of amounts in the books of the assessee and if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits, then, the some so credited may be charged to tax as income of the assessee. However, in the present case, the assessee has offered its explanation and if AO is still not satisfied with such explanation, onus shifts upon him to prove otherwise. The assessee’s burden is confined to prove creditworthiness of the creditor with reference to the transaction found in the books of the assessee.
In the present appeal, the identity of the creditor is not in doubt, the sale proceeds were received through banking channel, no adverse material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to substantiate his presumption, the shares remained in the demat account of the assessee for more than twelve months, sold through recognized stock exchange on which STT was paid, the quotation of the aid scrips were available on the exchange, thus, the appeal of the Revenue is having no merit, consequently, dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1357
Application u/s 12AA rejected - Tribunal held that on the grounds indicated as the application could not be rejected, directed for grant of registration under section 12A - HC held that Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the law laid down in the case of DPR Charitable Trust - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1356
Not accepting the claim of rate of tax applicable to domestic companies and/or co-operative banks in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 (Non-discrimination) of the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and the Republic of France ('India - France tax treaty' - HELD THAT:- Issue is covered, against the assessee, by a series of orders passed by the various co-ordinate benches in assessee’s own case as also in the cases of Chohung Bank vs. DDIT [2005 (11) TMI 372 - ITAT MUMBAI] and JCIT vs. Sakura Bank Limited [2005 (12) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] .In this view of this undisputed position and the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) being in harmony with the views of the co-ordinate benches, we reject the grievance of the assessee. No interference is thus called for.
Income accrued in India - data processing fees paid by the India branch office of the appellant to its Singapore bench, as income of the appellant under article 13 (royalties and fees for technical services) of the India France DTAA” - whether an internal charge on the PE can result in income in the hands of the GE or an intra GE unit? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (7) TMI 1305 - ITAT MUMBAI] payment on account of data processing charges paid to BNP Singapore cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The conclusion arrived at by the coordinate bench, whatever may have been the path traversed by the coordinate bench to reach this point, are the same as arrived at by us. Of course, our reasons are different, as set out earlier in this order, but that does not really matter as on now. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the coordinate bench. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance
-
2016 (3) TMI 1355
Not accepting the claim of rate of tax applicable to domestic companies and/or co-operative banks also applicable to the Appellant, in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 (Non-discrimination) of the India-France tax treaty - DTAA - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered, against the assessee, by a series of orders passed by the various co-ordinate benches in assessee’s own case as also in the cases of Chohung Bank vs. DDIT [2005 (11) TMI 372 - ITAT MUMBAI] and JCIT vs. Sakura Bank Limited [ [2005 (12) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] In this view of this undisputed position and the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) being in harmony with the views of the coordinate benches, we reject the grievance of the assessee. No interference is thus called for.
Accrual of income - data processing fees paid by Indian branch offices of the appellant to its Singapore branch, as income of the appellant under Article 13 (Royalties and fees for technical services and payments for the use of equipment) of the India-France tax treaty - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2012 (8) TMI 329 - ITAT, MUMBAI] Payment on account of data processing charges paid to BNP Singapore cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The conclusion arrived at by the coordinate bench, whatever may have been the path traversed by the coordinate bench to reach this point, are the same as arrived at by us. Of course, our reasons are different, as set out earlier in this order, but that does not really matter as on now. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the coordinate bench. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (3) TMI 1353
TP Adjustment - selection of comparable - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE- 6(3), MUMBAI [2015 (1) TMI 917 - ITAT MUMBAI] Vishal has been held to be not a good a comparable, inter alia, on the ground that it has outsourced its ITES work. Vishal has, thus, acted more like an intermediary than a ITES service provider in its own right. Respectfully following the views of the coordinate benches, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude Vishal from the final list of comparables.
As for the plea raised by the revenue, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, and, no interference in the well reasoned findings of the CIT(A) is thus called for. It is not even in dispute that CG Vak Software has made profits in the subsequent year, and that is the reason the DRP has held it to be includible in the list of comparables.
We approve the stand of the DRP on this point, and decline to interfere in the matter. We, however, make it clear that our aforesaid decision for this year shall act to the prejudice of the assessee to raise other grievances on the comparables, which are, according to the assessee, wrongly included in the final list of comparables, or the comparables, which have not been included in the final list of comparables but which, according to the assessee, should have been included in the list of comparables.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1352
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee had failed to produce books of account during assessment proceedings in confirmation of the income declared by the assessee - income assessed over and above the income returned by the assessee represents its concealed income - CIT-A deleted the penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, as correctly noted by the ld. CIT(A), the addition was by way of estimating the income and such estimate was not a result of any finding of any concealment of income, or of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. The estimation u/s 144 was of ₹ 1,66,98,147/-. This was reduced to an estimate of ₹ 39,22,515/-, vide order passed u/s 164. Even the AO has, in the penalty order, admitted the factum of estimation of income.
CIT(A) has correctly relied on the decisions for the proposition that in the case of estimation of income, no concealment penalty is leviable. No decision to the contrary has been placed before us.
Finding no force in the grounds raised by the department, they are rejected. The order under appeal is confirmed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1351
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - dividend income - allocation of expenditure to be attributed to the income - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2014 (1) TMI 1183 - ITAT MUMBAI] a reasonable allocation of expenditure has to be made which can be attributed to the income which is chargeable to tax particularly bank interest income as against dividend income. Thus expenditure as worked out by assessee is reasonable to make disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D.
Thus remand the matter to the file of AO and direct the AO to apply the said ratio to the facts of the present case and other decisions, if any, in force and decided the issue in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1350
Deduction u/s 80IA - CIT (A) confirming the exclusion being profit from sale of VSAT equipment u/s 80IA on the ground that such profits are not derived from eligible business or providing telecommunications services - Exclusion being income from software division for the purpose of computing deduction allowable u/s 80IA - Exclusion of only net interest income, i.e., gross interest income less expenditure incurred for earning such interest income, while computing deduction under Section 80-IA - HELD THAT:- As perused the records and have carefully gone through the order of the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06 which is the relevant assessment year before us. In the interest of justice, we remit this issue back to the file of AO to be decided as directed by the Hon’ble High Court [2012 (6) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2016 (3) TMI 1349
Exemption u/s 11(1) denied - capital gain arising from sale of building - sum was utilized otherwise then for acquiring capital assets in contravention of section 11(1A), thus, the assessee was not entitle to exemption of the said amount - application of income for charitable purposes - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute to the fact that the impugned amount was duly disclosed in the income and expenditure account and the expenditure is excess over the income. The total income credited to the account was ₹ 3,29,91,999/- and application towards the object of the trust was ₹ 4,72,02,440/-. Whereas, the AO restricted the deduction of income apply towards the object of the trust was to the extent of ₹ 1,60,26,499/-.
Even if, we accept the contention of the ld. DR to be correct that the impugned amount is income of the assessee trust fact remains that it was applied towards the object of the trust. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down , though on invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the case of Al Ameen Educational Society vs DIT [2012 (11) TMI 346 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein, the entire consideration was used to acquired new asset, therefore, there was no difficulty as nothing will be taxable u/s 11(1A)(a)(i) of the Act. The decision and the ratio laid down in CIT vs East India Charitable Trust [1992 (1) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] further supports the case of the assessee, if the capital gain is applied for charitable purposes of the assessee, not by acquiring a new asset, but for other charitable purposes, then there is no reason why its not be considered as application of income for charitable purposes. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (3) TMI 1348
Addition u/s 68 - as alleged credit worthiness of the share applicant was not proved - HELD THAT:- Addition has been made merely on the basis of assumption that as money is deposited in cash transaction is not genuine. We do not find any distinction between the transactions entered into by the assessee through banking channel or in cash unless prohibited by the law. Therefore for the purposes of applicability of section 68 of the Act both are looked at in similar manner.
As possible that in transaction in cash further enquiries may be made in absence of trail which is generally available in transactions through banking channel. Assessee has adequately explained the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction of share application money of ₹ 4851000/- deposit in cash in name of M/s. Anshu Tradex Pvt. Ltd with the assessee. Hence we confirm the order CIT (Appeals) deleting the addition u/s 68. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
