|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 851 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 924
Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2006-07 regarding classification of software for depreciation.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act by the assessee, challenging the reclassification of software under computers for depreciation purposes. The CIT observed that the assets were licenses classifiable as intangible assets subject to depreciation at 25%, instead of the claimed 60%. The CIT found the AO's decision erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, setting aside the order for reconsideration.
The assessee contended that the depreciation on computer software at 60% was in accordance with the law and did not prejudice revenue interests, especially considering eligibility for deduction u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act. The contention was supported by the fact that the Act itself prescribed a 60% depreciation rate for computer software. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the AO's decision was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests, especially since any excess depreciation would not result in additional tax due to the exemption u/s 10A.
The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal. The decision was made on 3rd June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 923
Issues involved: Interpretation of tax laws regarding the classification of rental income from ownership properties, and the treatment of expenses and depreciation claimed under different heads of income.
Issue 1 - Classification of rental income:
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V, Mumbai's decision to tax rental receipts of ownership properties under the head business income, contrary to the decision in the case of M/s. Shambu Investment, 263 ITR 143. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal referred to the principle of res judicata and emphasized the importance of consistency in assessing rental income. It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) should maintain consistency in the assessment unless there is a material change in facts or law. As there was no such change in the present case, the rental income was to be assessed under the head business income, and related expenses and depreciation were allowed.
Issue 2 - Treatment of expenses and depreciation:
The Revenue contended that allowing expenses and depreciation claimed under the head business income was erroneous since the rental income was to be assessed under the head income from house property. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on the consistency principle and the nature of the leasing activity as a business. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess the rental income from leasing activity under the head business income, allowing related expenses such as depreciation, electricity charges, security charges, and building repairs. The Tribunal followed its previous orders for assessment years 1997-98 and 2001-02, providing relief to the assessee on the said issues.
In conclusion, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld, granting relief to the assessee on the classification and treatment of rental income and related expenses.
-
2011 (6) TMI 922
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty for delayed filing of Annual Information Return (AIR).
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeals.
Summary:
Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty for Delayed Filing of AIR
The assessee challenged the imposition of penalties of Rs. 12,800/-, Rs. 18,200/-, Rs. 30,300/-, and Rs. 11,400/- for delayed filing of AIR for the financial years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 respectively. The Director of Income-tax (CIB), Chandigarh, noted that the Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Office, Nakodar, was required to file AIRs by specific due dates but failed to do so, resulting in delays ranging from 114 to 303 days. The penalties were imposed u/s 271FA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates a penalty of Rs. 100 per day of default. The Sub-Registrar cited reasons such as staff shortage and lack of computer literacy, which were deemed unacceptable as they did not pertain to the relevant periods of delay. Consequently, a total penalty of Rs. 72,700/- was imposed.
Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The Tribunal examined whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals against the order passed u/s 271FA. The Ld. DR argued that the appeals should have been filed before the CIT(A) as per section 246A(1)(q) of the Act, and not before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed, noting that section 253 of the Act does not grant it jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed u/s 271FA. Section 246A(1)(q) clearly states that appeals against penalties under Chapter XXI, which includes section 271FA, should be filed before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction but clarified that the assessee could prefer appeals in the appropriate forum.
Decision:
All appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Decision pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 921
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of assessment orders by CIT under section 263 of the Act.
2. Introduction of funds in the books of the assessee from M/s. Jupiter Commercial Corporation (JCC).
3. Cash brought in by the assessee from Adoni to Pune.
4. Gifts received by the assessee from various HUFs.
5. Transactions on pages 5, 6, and 8 of seized material.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Cancellation of Assessment Orders by CIT under Section 263 of the Act:
The learned CIT erred in cancelling the assessment orders, alleging they were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to various issues not being examined by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) during the assessment. The CIT's decision to cancel the entire assessment orders was contested, as the issues were already considered by the A.O. during the block assessment proceedings.
2. Introduction of Funds in the Books of the Assessee from M/s. Jupiter Commercial Corporation (JCC):
The assessee received amounts from JCC, which were claimed to be recorded in the books prior to the search. The A.O. accepted the explanations provided by the assessee and did not make any additions. The CIT, however, believed the A.O. did not apply his mind and ignored certain factual aspects, directing a re-examination of the issue. It was argued that the A.O. had verified the issue in detail, and the CIT was not justified in invoking section 263, as no incriminating material was found during the search.
3. Cash Brought in by the Assessee from Adoni to Pune:
The assessee claimed to send cash from Adoni to Pune for depositing in a bank account. The A.O. concluded that the cash deposits belonged to parties to whom loans were advanced, not the assessee, and made no additions. The CIT held that the A.O. should have added the cash deposits to the assessee's income, as he did not accept the cash transfer theory. The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the issue had been thoroughly investigated earlier, making the CIT's revision unjustified.
4. Gifts Received by the Assessee from Various HUFs:
The assessee received Rs. 39,00,000/- in gifts from various HUFs, recorded in the books before the search. The CIT doubted the genuineness of the HUFs and the source of funds, directing the A.O. to verify the gifts. The assessee contended that the HUFs were genuine, assessed to tax, and their balance sheets and returns were filed before the search. The A.O. had accepted the genuineness of the HUFs in earlier assessments, and no incriminating material was found during the search, making the CIT's revision unjustified.
5. Transactions on Pages 5, 6, and 8 of Seized Material:
Certain pages relating to M/s. Alimchand Topandas Oil Industries Ltd. were found with the assessee. The A.O. accepted the assessee's explanation that the papers pertained to the company, not the assessee. The CIT, however, held that the A.O. did not verify the issue properly and considered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee argued that the company's chairman confirmed the papers belonged to the company, and the A.O. had verified and accepted the explanation, making the CIT's revision unjustified.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune found that the A.O. had verified the issues in detail during the original assessment proceedings, and the CIT was not justified in invoking section 263 of the Act. The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the CIT were set aside.
-
2011 (6) TMI 920
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order of CIT(A), Panchkula u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for assessment year 2007-08 regarding disallowance of interest paid on loans u/s 36(1)(iii).
Grounds of Appeal:
1. Disallowance of interest on Packing Credit and other loans u/s 36(1)(iii).
2. Application of proviso to s.36(i)(iii) without loan for plot purchase.
Facts:
The assessee, engaged in export business, declared loans and advances of &8377; 2062970, including chit-fund advance and balance advances. AO disallowed interest of &8377; 191815 based on High Court precedent. Assessee argued advances were for business, with sufficient capital to cover. CIT(A) upheld disallowance.
Assessee's Arguments:
AR pointed out balance sheet details, emphasizing interest-free advances of &8377; 19,08,610, linked to capital account. Claimed interest on packing credit was business-related. Cited Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents.
Revenue's Response:
DR supported CIT(A)'s order, citing lack of evidence on commercial expediency for loans.
Judgment:
1. Investment in plot for factory justified interest paid, not disallowable. Commercial expediency established, High Court precedent not applicable.
2. Advance to parental firm and withdrawals by assessee not subject to disallowance, being capital-related.
3. Lack of evidence on commercial expediency for advances to parties upheld disallowance. Partly allowed appeal.
Conclusion:
Appeal partly allowed, interest disallowance reduced for certain advances.
Order Date:
21st June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 919
Issues Involved:
1. Depreciation on pre-operative expenses declared under VDIS.
2. Deduction of expenditure on wellhead platforms under Section 42(1)(b).
3. Addition of provision for doubtful debts to book profit under Section 115JA.
4. Depreciation on opening WDV of assets for subsequent years.
5. Deduction of depreciation on infrastructure profits under Section 80IA for computing book profits under Section 115JA.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Depreciation on Pre-operative Expenses Declared Under VDIS:
The first issue concerns the deletion by the CIT(A) of an addition of Rs. 2613.46 lakhs, being depreciation claimed on Rs. 10453.83 lakhs declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS). The assessee claimed depreciation on capitalized pre-operative expenses, which were initially reduced by interest income but later offered for tax under VDIS. The AO disallowed this claim, arguing that the amount declared was not credited in the books and that interest earned during the construction period is income from other sources. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that the pre-operative expenses should be increased by the interest income taxed under VDIS, thus enhancing the actual cost of assets and allowing for corresponding depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the cost of acquisition should be enhanced once the pre-operative income is taxed separately.
2. Deduction of Expenditure on Wellhead Platforms Under Section 42(1)(b):
The second issue involves the CIT(A) allowing an expenditure of Rs. 2500.99 lakhs towards wellhead platforms under Section 42(1)(b). The AO disallowed this claim, arguing that the expenditure on production facilities is not related to drilling and exploration activities. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention, noting that wellhead platforms are integral to drilling and exploration activities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that wellhead platforms are necessary for drilling and exploration and thus qualify for deduction under Section 42(1)(b).
3. Addition of Provision for Doubtful Debts to Book Profit Under Section 115JA:
The third issue is the addition of Rs. 391,17,724/- being the provision for doubtful debts to book profit under Section 115JA. The AO added this provision to the book profit, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the provision for doubtful debts represents a diminution in the value of assets. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, citing the retrospective amendment to Section 115JA by the Finance Act No.2 of 2009, which requires any provision for diminution in the value of assets to be added back in computing book profits.
4. Depreciation on Opening WDV of Assets for Subsequent Years:
The fourth issue pertains to the AO not allowing depreciation of Rs. 87,70,401/- on the opening WDV of Rs. 3,50,81,605/-. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that the depreciation is consequential to the effect given to the order of the CIT(A) for the preceding year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, reiterating that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the enhanced cost of acquisition without reducing the pre-operative income.
5. Deduction of Depreciation on Infrastructure Profits Under Section 80IA for Computing Book Profits Under Section 115JA:
The fifth issue involves the AO's adjustment of depreciation on infrastructure profits while computing book profits under Section 115JA. The AO reduced the infrastructure profit by depreciation not claimed by the assessee, resulting in an addition to the book profit. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, stating that depreciation cannot be thrust upon the assessee if not claimed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee could not have claimed depreciation on the SBM unit as it was to be handed over to the Gujarat Maritime Board.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decisions resulted in a mix of outcomes for the revenue and the assessee. The appeals by the revenue were partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding some of the CIT(A)'s decisions and reversing others based on legal provisions and retrospective amendments. The detailed analysis of each issue provides clarity on the application of tax laws and the interpretation of specific sections of the Income Tax Act.
-
2011 (6) TMI 918
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the addition of Rs. 16,23,370/- u/s 69A of the IT Act.
2. Applicability of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994.
3. Validity of the revenue's appeal based on the tax amount involved.
Summary:
1. Legitimacy of the addition of Rs. 16,23,370/- u/s 69A of the IT Act:
During a search and seizure action, gold and diamond jewellery worth Rs. 16,23,070/- was found. The Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to explain the sources of investment. The AO noted that Rs. 5,25,000/- was adjusted against the total jewellery value. The assessee claimed the jewellery was received on marriage and other ceremonies, and within the limits of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994. However, the AO recorded that the assessee could not provide purchase bills, gift deeds, or proof of gifts received, and thus made an addition of Rs. 16,23,370/- u/s 69A of the IT Act.
2. Applicability of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994:
On appeal, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee, applying the limits prescribed in CBDT Instruction No. 1916 for the assessee, his wife, and the jewellery found in the bank locker in the name of the assessee's mother. The CIT(A) rejected the claim that the limits should apply to all family members, including the father and mother of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,92,839/- and deleted Rs. 6,30,231/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's statement did not claim the jewellery belonged to joint family members but was received by the wife on various occasions and some purchased by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of the circular could only be availed by the assessee and his wife, and to the extent of the jewellery found in the bank locker in the name of the mother of the assessee.
3. Validity of the revenue's appeal based on the tax amount involved:
The assessee argued that the tax involved in the revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 3 lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT circular. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue, dismissing both.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the addition of Rs. 9,92,839/- and granting relief of Rs. 6,30,231/-. The appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed. The order was pronounced on 15th June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 917
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Confirmation of additions and disallowances by the CIT(A).
Summary:
1. Validity of the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the validity of the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the reassessment proceedings were initiated while the original return was still pending, and the reasons recorded by the A.O. were without application of mind. The A.O. issued a notice u/s 148 based on information from the Vigilance Department, which indicated that the assessee had made significant investments. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, citing that there was relevant material for the A.O. to form a belief of income escapement.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the A.O. were mere information from the Vigilance Department and were undated, indicating non-application of mind. The A.O. incorrectly stated that no return of income was filed, despite the assessee having filed a return on 1-11-2004. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. did not independently verify the information or form a belief of income escapement, relying solely on the Vigilance Department's report. Citing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in C.I.T. Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi), the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order due to the A.O.'s failure to apply his mind and independently arrive at a belief of income escapement.
2. Confirmation of additions and disallowances by the CIT(A):
Since the reassessment order was quashed, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee regarding the confirmation of additions and disallowances by the CIT(A).
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the reassessment order dated 29-12-2006 was quashed. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 6th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 916
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of CIT(Appeals)-III, Chennai regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessment year 2006-07.
Summary:
1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order, challenging the deletion of deduction u/s 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 13,26,78,901.
2. The Revenue argued that the completion certificate from CMDA was necessary for claiming the deduction, while the assessee had only produced a certificate from the local Panchayat.
3. The Tribunal noted that the certificate from the Panchayat confirmed project completion before the deadline, and the CIT(A) had rightly considered the Panchayat as a local authority u/s 10(20).
4. As the Panchayat fell within the definition of a local authority, the completion certificate from the Panchayat was deemed sufficient for claiming the deduction u/s 80IB.
5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
This judgment clarifies that for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10), a completion certificate from a local authority, such as a Panchayat, can be considered valid if the authority confirms project completion within the stipulated timeframe.
-
2011 (6) TMI 915
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C when total income is assessed under section 115J.
Summary:
1. The appellant-revenue challenged the Tribunal's order regarding the chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C when total income is assessed under section 115J for the Assessment Year 1990-91.
2. The substantial question of law formulated was whether interest under sections 234B and 234C is chargeable if total income is assessed to tax under section 115J, referencing the decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rolta India Limited.
3. The appellant's counsel referred to the Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision contradicted the law laid down by the Court, and the respondent did not appear.
4. The Supreme Court's decision highlighted that sections 115J/115JA are special provisions for taxing zero-tax companies, and interest under section 234B applies to all companies, including those assessed under section 115J.
5. The Tribunal's decision to not charge interest under sections 234B and 234C due to assessment under section 115J was deemed incorrect based on the Supreme Court's ruling.
6. The Court ruled in favor of the revenue, quashing the Tribunal's order and stating that interest under sections 234B and 234C is chargeable even when total income is assessed under section 115J.
7. The appeal was allowed with no costs incurred.
-
2011 (6) TMI 914
Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of tax at source on air freight charges, clearing charges, and freight reimbursement charges.
Summary:
Issue 1: Air freight charges and clearing charges
The appeal by Revenue challenged the order allowing air freight charges and clearing charges without deduction of TDS u/s 194C. The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated between freight reimbursement and agency commission, holding that reimbursement to non-resident carriers does not attract section 194C. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that no TDS is required when the assessee reimburses expenses incurred by a third party.
Issue 2: Freight reimbursement charges
Similarly, the appeal contested the allowance of freight reimbursement charges without TDS deduction u/s 194C. The Commissioner (Appeals) distinguished between components of payments to overseas carriers, ruling that reimbursement to non-residents does not fall under section 194C. Referring to a prior case, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's ruling, stating that TDS is not necessary when the assessee reimburses costs incurred by a third party.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that no TDS is required u/s 194C for reimbursements made by the assessee to third parties.
-
2011 (6) TMI 913
Issues involved:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI pertains to assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07, addressing issues related to bad debts, treatment of income, revised computation of MAT u/s 115JB, disallowance u/s 14A, and confirmation of disallowance of bad debts.
A.Y. 2004-05:
Issue 1 - Bad Debts:
The first ground involves the confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,64,282/- as bad debts and restoration of disallowance on account of bad debts in respect of a specific company. The AO observed that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for bad debts relating to 24 parties, including a sum of Rs. 7,36,245/- due from a company. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 2,64,282/- but directed the AO to examine the claim related to the company. The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, held that the mere writing off of bad debts in the books of account is sufficient for claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). As the assessee had written off the amount as bad debts, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 10,00,727/-.
Issue 2 - Treatment of Income:
The second ground challenges the treatment of income amounting to Rs. 11,69,675/- as falling under "Income from other sources" instead of business income. The Tribunal differentiated between interest income on deposits for business purposes and other sources, directing the AO to verify details and decide the taxable head accordingly. Interest on income-tax refund and loans were correctly treated as "Income from other sources," while finance charges on leased assets were deemed as "Business income."
Issue 3 & 4 - Revised Computation of MAT u/s 115JB:
Grounds 3 & 4 contest the non-consideration of the revised computation of MAT u/s 115JB. The AO rejected the revised computation, citing the expired time limit for filing. The Tribunal held that the revised computation should have been considered during assessment proceedings and directed the AO to reevaluate it as per law.
A.Y. 2006-07:
Issue 1 - Disallowance u/s 14A:
The first ground challenges the confirmation of disallowance u/s 14A at Rs. 3,22,775/-. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance on a reasonable basis, without applying Rule 8D prospectively.
Issue 2 - Disallowance of Bad Debts:
Ground 2 contests the confirmation of disallowance of bad debts written off by the assessee. Following a similar decision in the previous assessment year, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,15,000/-.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for both assessment years, addressing various issues related to bad debts, treatment of income, revised computation of MAT u/s 115JB, and disallowance u/s 14A.
-
2011 (6) TMI 912
Deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) - Interest on Loan taken for Investment - The assessee took a loan and invested it in subsidiary company, undisputedly, as an investment - Assessee claimed a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of the interest payable by it to the bank - AO held that since the investment is out of borrowed funds for business, the proportionate interest is to be disallowed.
HELD THAT:- ITAT found that the assessee had invested the amount in question in subsidiary company, for the acquisition of its shares i.e. to have a control over majority shares but not to earn dividend on interest. Before ITAT, it was not disputed that such an investment is an integral part of the business. In these circumstances, ITAT, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to the amount as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii).
Assessee's submission that amount paid to subsidiary company must be treated as loan is not acceptable since the assessee has nowhere stated that the amount has been paid to subsidiary company must be treated as loan neither there is anything to support the contention that the assessee is now claiming that the amount be added as an interest receivable on bad debts.
We find that the reasoning of the ITAT that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary company to have control over that company and, therefore, the element of interest paid on the overdraft was not susceptible of bifurcation and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) is correct and deserves to be accepted.
In this result, we hold that ITAT was right in deleting the addition, thus the question is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 911
Issues Involved: Validity of addition u/s. 68 of the Act and entitlement for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act.
Validity of Addition u/s. 68 of the Act:
The Revenue challenged the first appellate order questioning the validity of the action of the Ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 2,01,60,000 in A.Y. 1999-2000 and Rs. 1,06,02,000 in A.Y. 2000-01, holding that the addition made by the A.O as assessee's income from regular banking business is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The Ld D.R. contended that the Ld CIT(A) had not appreciated that the provision laid down u/s. 80P(2)(ai) of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee since lending in such society is allowed to members only. The A.O. had made the addition on account of Fixed Deposits found credited in the assessee's books, for which the assessee failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation about the nature and sources thereof. The Ld A.R. argued that the issue raised was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal, indicating that the society is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld CIT(A) in favor of the assessee, finding no infirmity in the first appellate order in this regard.
Entitlement for Deduction u/s. 80P of the Act:
The Tribunal referred to a previous decision of the Pune Bench regarding the applicability of section 80P(2)(a)(i) and the definition of a Member of a co-operative society. It was noted that the society in question had given loans only to its members, satisfying the conditions laid down u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) of the Act, making it entitled to deduction u/s. 80P. The Tribunal further held that violation of bye-laws by the assessee did not automatically disqualify it as a co-operative society, as registration by the registrar of Co-op. Societies was still in place. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee society would continue to enjoy the status of a Co-operative Society and, therefore, deduction u/s 80P would be available to the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 910
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
1. Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed late by 403 days. The assessee explained the delay through an affidavit, stating that the previous counsel, Shri Vishnu Patel, did not inform them about the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee became aware of the order only when the AO initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee then engaged a new counsel and filed the appeal. The Tribunal deemed it proper to condone the delay, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC), which advocates a liberal approach in condonation of delay to serve the ends of justice.
2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):
The assessee contended that they had deducted tax on the payment and deposited most of the TDS before the due date for filing the return. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench's decision in Shri Kanubhai Ramjibhai Vs. ITO, ITA No.3983/Ahd/2008, which held that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective. The Tribunal found that the amendment aimed to eliminate unintended consequences and undue hardship to taxpayers, thus it should be considered retrospective from 1st April 2005. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the payment of TDS by the assessee. For payments where TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) should be made. However, for items where no TDS was deducted or deposited after the due date, disallowance would be sustained. The AO was instructed to re-adjudicate the issue after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Result:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (6) TMI 909
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Disallowance of expenditure on account of premium in respect of futures and options.
6. Revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and limitation period.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Invocation of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in not confirming the AO's action regarding the invocation of Explanation to Section 73 for treating the profit from business as speculation profit. The assessee is engaged in share broking and trading, including jobbing, futures, and options. The AO treated the loss from share trading as speculation loss under Explanation to Section 73. However, CIT(A) allowed the loss as business loss, stating that the assessee's activities do not fall under speculation business. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's principal business was share broking and trading, not speculation.
2. Disallowance under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The revenue argued that CIT(A) wrongfully deleted the disallowance of Rs. 28,000 under Section 35D by admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating the amount was paid to the Calcutta Stock Exchange as trading fees. The Tribunal found no fault in CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this issue.
3. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, claiming all material facts were disclosed, and no new evidence justified reopening. The AO reopened the assessment based on the invocation of Explanation to Section 73. CIT(A) upheld the AO's action, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., which allows reopening if there is reason to believe income has escaped assessment. The Tribunal agreed with CIT(A), noting the AO had sufficient cause for reopening.
4. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The AO disallowed Rs. 28,600 under Section 14A for expenses related to earning exempt dividend income. CIT(A) reduced this to Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal, referencing the Bombay High Court decision in Godrej Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd., directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 1% of the dividend income.
5. Disallowance of Expenditure on Account of Premium in Respect of Futures and Options:
The revenue contested CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 4,45,19,455 for premium on futures and options. The Tribunal, consistent with its earlier decision, upheld CIT(A)'s order, noting the expenditure was incurred in the course of the assessee's share trading business.
6. Revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Limitation Period:
The assessee argued that the CIT's revision under Section 263 was barred by limitation, as the original assessment was completed on 26.05.2003, and the reassessment on 16.10.2006 was for specific reasons unrelated to the issues in the revision. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Alagendran Finance Ltd., held that the limitation period starts from the original assessment date and quashed the CIT's revision order as time-barred. Additionally, on merits, the Tribunal found the expenditures in question were allowable under Section 43B, further supporting the quashing of the revision order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objections and appeal, providing a detailed rationale for each issue based on the facts and applicable legal precedents.
-
2011 (6) TMI 908
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. C.I.T.
2. Examination of gifts and unsecured loans.
3. Deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act.
4. Adequacy of the A.O.'s enquiry and verification.
Summary:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. C.I.T.:
The appeal by the assessee challenges the order dated 31/03/08 of ld. C.I.T., Guwahati, passed u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2003-04, which set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 02/03/2006. The ld. C.I.T. found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue due to inadequate examination by the A.O.
2. Examination of gifts and unsecured loans:
The ld. C.I.T. directed the A.O. to re-examine the issue of making gifts and taking unsecured loans from the same persons. The assessee made gifts totaling Rs. 1,40,61,791/- to various individuals, which the ld. C.I.T. believed were not properly verified by the A.O. The assessee provided bank statements and other documents to support the gifts, but the ld. C.I.T. observed discrepancies in cash deposits and transfers.
3. Deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act:
The ld. C.I.T. initially questioned the deduction u/s 80-IB allowed by the A.O. without proper examination. However, the assessment order extensively dealt with this issue, denying 75% of the deduction claimed and computing the income at Rs. 1,40,42,960/- against Rs. 3,45,586/- shown by the assessee. The ld. C.I.T. eventually dropped this point, indicating satisfaction with the A.O.'s enquiry.
4. Adequacy of the A.O.'s enquiry and verification:
The assessee argued that the A.O. conducted detailed enquiries, as evidenced by multiple hearings and the approval of the Addl. C.I.T. The Tribunal observed that the A.O. had examined all relevant issues and materials, and the ld. C.I.T.'s direction for re-examination was based on suspicion rather than a clear error. The Tribunal emphasized that the power u/s 263 should not be used to substitute the C.I.T.'s opinion for that of the A.O. if the A.O. had taken a possible view after proper enquiry.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the ld. C.I.T. was not justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 02/03/2006. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the order passed by ld. C.I.T. u/s 263 of the Act was quashed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 907
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under the head "tanker running."
2. Disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,23,370 under section 40(a)(ia).
3. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,34,165 under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 1,50,000 under the head "tanker running"
The assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 4,60,481 against receipts of Rs. 3,75,265 from tanker running, resulting in a loss of Rs. 85,217. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed Rs. 1,50,000 citing lack of vouchers for most expenses. The assessee argued that necessary expenses for running the tanker were incurred, supported by vouchers for diesel and wages. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the lack of verifiable vouchers for various expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the A.O. to recompute income from the tanker based on a fixed amount per month due to unverifiable accounts.
Issue 2: Disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,23,370 under section 40(a)(ia)
The A.O. disallowed interest paid to certain individuals totaling Rs. 1,23,370 due to non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under section 40(a)(ia). The assessee contended that the recipients had submitted Form 15G, exempting TDS. However, the A.O. found no record of these forms and disallowed the interest. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the forms were not filed with the relevant authorities. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, citing compliance with section 197A(1A) exempting TDS for interest payments.
Issue 3: Disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,34,165 under section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act
The A.O. disallowed interest on housing loan amounting to Rs. 1,34,165 under section 24(b) as the residential house was deemed incomplete. The assessee argued that the valuation report indicated completion of certain floors and self-occupation by the owner. However, the A.O. highlighted discrepancies in ownership documents and incomplete construction. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, emphasizing the unfinished state of the property. The ITAT directed a reevaluation of interest deduction based on the portion occupied by the assessee and loan utilization.
In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, directing the A.O. to recompute income from tanker running and interest deductions based on the specific circumstances of each issue.
-
2011 (6) TMI 906
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of undisclosed income from the sale of silver, diamonds, and silver articles.
2. Addition of undisclosed income from excess stock of gold ornaments.
3. Enhancement of undisclosed income due to alleged initial investment for unaccounted sales.
4. Deletion of disallowance of unproved purchases.
5. Restriction of addition on account of undisclosed profit.
6. Deletion of addition due to undervaluation of stock.
7. Deletion of protective addition made in the hands of the assessee.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition of Undisclosed Income from the Sale of Silver, Diamonds, and Silver Articles:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,74,798 for silver, Rs. 27,580 for diamonds, and Rs. 21,190 for silver articles, which were based on the physical verification showing a shortage compared to the books. The AO presumed these items were sold outside the books and taxed the profit. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had shown undisclosed business profits of Rs. 2.70 Crores, which were higher than the profits determined by the Special Auditor/AO, covering the additions. Thus, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 5,23,568 addition, allowing Ground No.1.
2. Addition of Undisclosed Income from Excess Stock of Gold Ornaments:
The assessee questioned the addition of Rs. 1,22,96,185 due to transactions with H. Kumar Gems International. The CIT(A) did not provide reasoning for the addition, merely dismissing it for statistical purposes. The Tribunal noted the lack of a speaking order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing Ground No.2 for statistical purposes.
3. Enhancement of Undisclosed Income Due to Alleged Initial Investment for Unaccounted Sales:
The AO estimated turnover for various years and enhanced the assessment by adding Rs. 10,00,000 as initial investment for unaccounted transactions. The CIT(A) held this estimation reasonable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation, rejecting both the assessee's and revenue's grounds for higher or lower adjustments, thus rejecting Ground No.3 and the additional ground raised by the revenue.
4. Deletion of Disallowance of Unproved Purchases:
The AO disallowed Rs. 41,07,662 of purchases due to the absence of details. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the seized papers should be considered in their entirety. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO had accepted other purchases noted on the same papers and should not have selectively disallowed some. The first appellate order was upheld, and Ground No.1 of the revenue's appeal was rejected.
5. Restriction of Addition on Account of Undisclosed Profit:
The AO worked out undisclosed income based on seized "Jama Kharcha Panas" papers and estimated per day income for periods without evidence. The CIT(A) reduced the addition from Rs. 57,11,770 to Rs. 47,41,772 after deleting the disallowed purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this reduction and upheld the first appellate order, rejecting Ground No.2 of the revenue's appeal.
6. Deletion of Addition Due to Undervaluation of Stock:
The AO added Rs. 22,06,664 for undervaluation of stock, rejecting the assessee's average cost method. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting no incriminating evidence was found during the search to justify the change in valuation method. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing that the addition was beyond the scope of block assessment and the average cost method was accepted in the past. Ground No.3 of the revenue's appeal was rejected.
7. Deletion of Protective Addition Made in the Hands of the Assessee:
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 2,53,32,635 in the assessee's hands, substantively adding it to Shri Prakash Salunke's income. The CIT(A) deleted the protective addition, finding no evidence linking the disputed documents to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the documents were found in Shri Prakash Salunke's possession and were presumed to belong to him under section 132(4A). The first appellate order was upheld, and Ground No.4 of the revenue's appeal was rejected.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions and reductions, and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The matter regarding the addition of accrued interest on KVP and NSC was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The overall result was a partial allowance of the assessee's appeal and dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
-
2011 (6) TMI 905
Issues involved: Determination of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, application of peak credit method, consideration of additional evidence by CIT(A) u/s Rule 46A.
Summary:
1. The Department's appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on unexplained cash credits. The AO added the entire cash deposits in the bank account as income u/s 68 of the I.T. Act based on AIR information. The CIT(A) partially deleted the addition, confirming only a portion of it.
2. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to a certain amount, citing the peak credit method for unexplained cash credits. The Department contested this decision, arguing that the peak credit method was not applicable based on bank account transactions. The assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s decision.
3. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, deposited cash in a bank account, explaining it as business-related transactions. The AO considered the deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) relied on the peak credit method and Tribunal decisions to make a partial deletion of the addition.
4. Various legal precedents were cited by both parties, including cases like "Jhamatmal Takhatmal Kirana Merchants v. CIT" and "Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari v. CIT". The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the application of the peak credit method in this case.
5. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order justified, as the bank transactions indicated the need for applying the peak credit method. The decision confirmed the partial deletion of the addition, dismissing the Department's appeal.
Separate Judgement: None.
............
|
9911796707
