|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 848 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 1032 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... by the AO. The AO shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. o p /o p 11. Since the assessee’s claim of deduction of increased profit u/s 10B is restored back to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the assessee’s business income is eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act and then to allow the deduction with regard to increased profit assessed by the AO, ground Nos.2 to 4 taken by the assessee have become redundant at this stage and same are also restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in case it is found that the addition by way of disallowance of expenditure is not eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The AO shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard. We order accordingly. o p /o p 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner as indicated above. o p /o p Decision pronounced in the open Court on 6th May, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (5) TMI 1031 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... come Tax (Appeals) but confirmed by the ITAT that the same is to be taxed in assessment year 2000-01. However, this would not lead to a conclusion that assessee has made any concealment or the explanation given by the assessee is not bonafide. Thus, we find that issue was controversial and existence of two opinions cannot be ruled out, at the relevant time. 10.1 Moreover, we find that for 2/3rd of the shares offered, were subject to lock in period, which as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Infosys Technology Ltd. 297 ITR 16 had no perquisite value. 10.2 We further find that appeal against the ITAT order has been admitted by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 11. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, we uphold the same. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/05/2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1030 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed.” 4. Thus, the taxability issue was held against the assessee and the levy of interest u/s 234B on income liable for TDS was held in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which, in ITA No.1872/2010 by order dated 1.12.2010, dismissed the Revenue’s ground challenging ITAT order about non-levy of interest u/s 234B. 5. Learned DR is heard. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. Ground No.1 & 7 raised by the assessee are general in nature and are dismissed. Ground No.2 to 5 are held against the assessee respectfully following the order of the Tribunal cited supra. Ground No.6 about non-chargeability of interest u/s 234B is held in favour of the assessee respectfully following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment (supra). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 9th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1029 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t trading portfolio into investments vide resolution of the Board in Annual General Meeting to convert the shares from stock in trade to investments. The assessee has taken the market value on 31.3.2004 as the cost of the acquisition without taking the benefit of the indexation, the difference between the sales price and the cost of acquisition has been offered for taxation as short term capital gain. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we uphold the same. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2011.” 7. In the aforementioned decision, both of us are party, therefore, following the aforementioned decision, we find no infirmity in the relief given by the ld. CIT(A). We decline to interfere. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 30.5.2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Loss on sale of repossessed assets u/s 36(1) (vii) r/w Section 36 (2) - Whether loss on sale of repossessed assets is a capital loss or it is a bad debt allowable u/s 36(1) (vii) R/W Section 36 (2) – Held that:- The issue is covered by the judgment of this Court [2010 (11) TMI 802 - Delhi High Court] wherein held CIT (A) was right in his conclusion to held that the amount advanced by the assessee during the course of business could not be recovered would be treated as bad debt allowable under Section 36 (2) of the Act. Relied on A.W.Figgies case [2001 (9) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA High Court].
Depreciation on computers and peripherals at the rate of 60% is allowable See Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2011 (5) TMI 1027 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... of e-filing of quarterly returns. It was also contended that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) to assign reasonable cause for his failure in filing the quarterly e-filing returns. The learned DR, on the other hand, argued that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), but he failed to appear and show any reasonable cause for his failure. In view of these facts and having considered the submissions of both the parties, we feel that in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after giving one more opportunity to the assessee so that he may put up his case on merits before him. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.11.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1026 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed CIT(A) considering his appellate order dated 15th December, 2008 deleted the addition. In the second ground also the learned CIT(A) following his order dated 15th December, 2008 deleted the addition on account of share application money. 11. The learned representatives of both the parties submitted that both the issues are same as have been considered in assessment year 2005-06, therefore, order in that case may be followed. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the submissions of the parties, we are of the view both the issues are same. The learned CIT(A) rightly followed his appellate order dated 15th December, 2008 for preceding assessment year 2005-06 in deleting the additions. Since, both the issues are same, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions on merit. In the result, the departmental appeal stands dismissed. 12. In the result, both the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20 -05-2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1025 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... chased this land with no intention to use it for carrying out any agricultural operations, but to set up a power plant. Right from its acquisition in 1996 and upto the date of its sale, no agricultural operations were carried out on this land by the assessee or by any person on behalf of the assessee-company. Consequently, as on the date of sale, the concerned land cannot be treated as an agricultural land. It was definitely a business asset held as such in the books of the assessee-company hence, loss on sale of such land would constitute a long term capital loss and would be eligible for carry forward for set off to future years. Hence, the grounds raised by the Revenue cannot be allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed. 20. To summarize the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue stands partly allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 24.5.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1024 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... med by the learned CIT(A) ought to have agreed to the proposition that the income returned by the assessee was at 5 of the gross receipts. We are inclined to hold that on the basis of findings given in both the orders of the authorities below, the computation of taxable income in the hands of the assessee has to be under the provisions of the I.T. Act when estimation has been resorted to. Once the basis for disallowance has been established to have no cogent basis or reasoning, the estimation also to be in accordance with the provisions of the I.T. Act, which the learned Counsel for the assessee agreed at 8 as provided u/s.44AD. We direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the Net profit 8 on the gross receipts from contract amounting to ₹ 91,82,399 to be taxed by partly allowing the ground of appeal. This being the solitary ground therefore stands partly allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 27th May, 2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1023 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... 1981, rendered on August 20, 1981, has laid down the approach that the authorities must adopt in such matters in the following terms ‘The Supreme Court has observed in numerous decisions, including Ramlal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; State of West Bengal V.Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, and Babhutmal Raichand Oswal V Laxmibal R Tarte AIRR 1975 SC 1297, that the State authorities should not raise technical pleas if the citizens have a lawful right and the lawful right is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. The State authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt”. 9. We, therefore, set aside this ground to the file of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) for deciding the same in terms of our above discussion. We direct accordingly. 10. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in open Court on 30th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1022 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e name of Punjab Biotehnology park, the facts as available on record indicate that the said sum of money was given by the assessee-company out of business expediency. Punjab Biotehnology park, a subsidiary of the assessee-company and therefore, the assessee is deeply interested in the working of the said company. Besides, the subsidiary company has been set in pursuance of joint collaboration agreement to which the assessee is a party for the development of Biotechnology Park. The subsidiary company is required to act as a facilitator for development of the biotechnology park in which the assessee is also interested. On the facts of the case, we are satisfied that the loan standing in the name of Punjab Bio-tehnology park is guided by business expediency. The AO is directed not to disallow any interest attributable to the loans given by the assesseecompany to the said subsidiary company. 14. Appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 13th May 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1021 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e to withdraw the petition stating that the petitioner shall file appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as undertaken before the High Court, raising all the points, which were sought to be raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1020 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch as non traceability of case records, procedural formalities involved in the Department and the papers are to be processed through different officers in rank for their comments, approval etc. and then the preparation of the draft of appeal memo, paper book and the administrative difficulties such as shortage of staff, the delay has occurred in filing the present appeal. It is also submitted that it is absolutely essential in the interest of justice to condone the delay. I say that the appellant has good chance of succeeding in the appeal and if the relief as prayed for herein is not granted, grave and irreparable loss shall be caused to the revenue." In our opinion, the said explanation does not make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1019 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 377; 3,23,625/- u/s 80RR of the Act. In so far as the argument raised by the learned DR based on the escaped income as recorded in the reasons added in the assessment year 1999-2000, we find no merit in the same keeping in view that the unit of assessment is assessment year and every assessment year is different. The validity of the reopening each assessment year has to be decided on the basis of the facts of that year including the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment of t hat year. The above judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case. We, therefore, respectfully following the said judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that the addition made by the AO is not sustainable and the same is hereby deleted. 10.. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allo wed. Pronounced in the open court on this day of 27th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1018 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... field measuring instruments and process solutions. The assessee company has engaged Field System Integrator as an agent and according to the terms and conditions of the MOU the commission will be paid to the agent as per the paper book page-42. The ld. CIT(A) after examining the entire MOU entered between the assessee and party gave a finding that assessee is not liable to pay fringe benefit tax and to pay the fringe benefit tax there must be a employer-employee relationship between the parties concerned. To invoke sec. 115 WB (2), it is necessary for the AO to satisfy that the payment made by the assessee is to his employee. In the present case assessee paid commission to the agent not an employee. Therefore, the above provision of sec.115 WB (2) has no application to the facts of the case. In view of the above we find no infirmity in the order passed by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1017 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.” 12. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and hence, we uphold the same. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/5/2011, upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1016 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... dismissed. 48. Ground Nos.2 & 4 read as under 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in directing re-computation of deduction u/s.80IA. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee was sympathetically manipulating the profits of separate units to maximize deduction u/s.80IA. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore also erred in directing the AO to exclude the profit from the trading activity while working out the eligible profit for deduction u/s.80IA. 49. These grounds have already been restored back with certain directions to re-compute the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. Resultantly, in the like manner, these grounds may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 50. In the result, appeals of the Assessee (A.Ys. 2001-02 & 2002-03) as well as appeals of the Revenue (A.Ys. 2001-02 & 2002-03) are partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 31/ 05 /2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1015 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dislodged this presumption. Hence on this ground also, the issue is to be decided in favour of the assessee. 14. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer on the details filed before him and hence the argument that the Assessing Officer has not been given an opportunity is against the facts of the case. Admission of additional evidence has not been challenged by Revenue. 15. For all these reasons, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. 16. Coming to the assessee’s appeal, the Ld.Counsel for the assesse did not press the same, in view of the smallness of the amount and on the condition that it would not set a legal precedent. Accepting thisproposition we dismiss this appeal; by the assessee. 17. In the result both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s appeal are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th August, 2012.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1014 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ahri, Dr. (Ms.) Charu Walikhanna, B. V. Balaram Das For the Respondent Soli J. Sorabjee, R. B. Shukla, Vishnu Sharma ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1013 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... (2) of section 73 in respect of which a set-off can be granted, introduces a restriction into the scope and ambit of the deeming fiction which is created by the Explanation to section 73, which is not contemplated by Parliament. It was held that the deeming fiction created by the Explanation to section 73 arises specifically in the context of provisions of section 73 and is confined to that purpose alone. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lokmat Newspapers P. Ltd. (supra), we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the action of the AO in treating the activity of the assessee in trading in shares as speculative in nature u/s 73 and dismiss the relevant grounds of the assessee’s appeals. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of May, 2011.
............
|
