|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 888 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1227
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order on grounds related to income estimation.
Estimation of Income:
During assessment, discrepancies found in accounts. AR agreed to income estimation. AO estimated income at 12.5% on contract receipts and added 25% of certain expenditure. CIT(A) accepted assessee's contention, deleted addition, and directed AO to accept declared profit. Revenue appealed, claiming AR admitted discrepancies and agreed to income estimation. Assessee's counsel argued AR never agreed to specific percentages. Tribunal found AR admitted discrepancies but not profit percentage. Directed AO to estimate net profit at 6.5% of gross contract receipts, citing lack of comparable cases for AO's estimation at 12.5%. No further allowance permitted.
Conclusion:
Tribunal partly allowed revenue's appeal, directing revised net profit estimation at 6.5% on gross contract receipts. No infirmity found in CIT's order regarding self-made vouchers. Decision pronounced on 27.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1226
Issues involved:
Department's appeal regarding deletion of addition under section 54F for two different assesses for assessment year 2006-07.
Issue 1: Exemption u/s 54F denied by AO
The AO denied exemption u/s 54F to the assessee due to non-possession of the flat and failure to comply with conditions. Assessee relied on CBDT Circulars and a High Court decision to support their claim.
Issue 2: Department's appeal against CIT(A)'s decision
The Department appealed against CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption u/s 54F, arguing that the assesses failed to comply with the provisions and that the Circulars cited were not applicable to the private company's allotment.
Judgment:
The assessees made long-term capital gains and invested in a flat jointly with a private company before the specified date. The AO denied exemption citing non-possession and incomplete conditions. However, the CIT(A) reversed the assessment, granting exemption u/s 54F. The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim and relying on Circulars meant for different schemes. The assessees argued compliance with section 54F and similarity of the scheme to DDA's Self Financing Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the scheme under which the flats were allotted was similar to DDA's scheme. The CIT(A) correctly applied CBDT Circulars liberally interpreting sections 54 and 54F. The Tribunal observed that the provisional allotment by the private company was in fact final, as it included specific details and was a legal arrangement for transfer. The possession before the prescribed period was not mandatory as per Circulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the Department's grounds. The appeals filed by the Department were dismissed.
Separate Judgment: None.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1225
Deduction u/s 80HHC on unite-wise - HELD THAT:- We find that the plea made by assessee that it is maintaining separate books of account for each unit i.e. units engaged in exports and units engaged in domestic sales have not been considered. In case the assessee is maintaining the separate books of account for both the units and export profit can be deduced separately, the deduction u/s 80HHC should be computed accordingly. The Assessing Officer will also consider the case laws cited by the Ld. counsel for the assessee in the cases of Eastern Leather Products (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [1998 (6) TMI 114 - ITAT DELHI-A]; CIT v. Rathore Brothers [2001 (10) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, this issue of assessee is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer and allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1224
Issues involved: Challenge to order u/s 263 of the Act revoking exemption u/s 10(10C) on ex-gratia amount received under Exit Option Scheme by State Bank of India.
Summary:
The appeals were filed by assessees against the order passed by CIT Rajahmundry u/s 263 of the Act challenging the revocation of exemption u/s 10(10C) on ex-gratia amount received under Exit Option Scheme. The assessees retired from State Bank of India under the said scheme and claimed exemption initially accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer reopened assessments u/s 148 and allowed the exemption u/s 10(10C) after comparing with a relevant decision. However, CIT directed to revoke the exemption due to non-compliance with rule 2BA of Income-Tax rules. The assessees appealed against this decision.
The Authorized Representative argued that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as he verified the claim properly. He cited a relevant decision to support his argument. He also mentioned circulars and court decisions supporting the exemption claim under similar schemes. The State Bank of India modified the scheme to comply with rule 2BA, which was not considered by CIT. The Authorized Representative contended that the Assessing Officer's order was correct and not erroneous.
The Departmental Representative argued that the scheme by State Bank of India explicitly stated no exemption u/s 10(10C) on ex-gratia payment and did not comply with rule 2BA. He stated that the Assessing Officer did not apply the law correctly, making the order erroneous. The Departmental Representative supported the CIT's decision to revoke the exemption.
The Tribunal discussed the legal position of section 263 and emphasized that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue for revision. They noted that the CIT relied on a directive issued after assessments were completed and that the Assessing Officer's view was plausible and sustainable in law. The Tribunal found no justification for initiating proceedings u/s 263 and set aside the CIT's orders, allowing the appeals of the assessees.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessees, pronouncing the decision on 7th December 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1223
Issues involved: Two appeals - one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 12.03.2004 arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITA No.1683/Ahd/2004 : A.Y.1999-2000 (Revenue's appeal)
Issue 1: Whether the loss at the first limb of section 80HHC(3) should be ignored and taken as "Nil" for computation of deduction u/s 80HHC.
- The Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 introduced provisos with retrospective effect, necessitating re-computation of deduction under Section 80HHC.
- The Assessing Officer directed to re-compute deduction under Section 80HHC in view of the amended provisions of the law.
Issue 2: Whether the assessee should be allowed division-wise exports profitability for deduction under section 80HHC.
- Disagreement on allowing deduction on division-wise profit; various judicial pronouncements cited by both parties.
- The matter set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication considering the stand taken in preceding and subsequent years.
ITA No.1698/Ahd/2004 : A.Y.2000-2001 (Assessee's Appeal)
Issue 1: Interpretation of proviso to Section 80HHC(3)(b) regarding "Total Turnover" and "Export Turnover."
- Issue already set aside by ITAT for re-computation by the Assessing Officer.
- Matter restored back to the Assessing Officer for appropriate claim determination.
Issue 2: Disallowance of payment made in cash for purchases from a public sector undertaking under Section 40A(3).
- Disallowance upheld as payment to a public sector undertaking not equated with payment to the government.
- Alternative request for computation of deduction under Section 80HHC accepted based on profit determined after disallowance.
In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal is deemed allowed for statistical purposes, while the assessee's appeal is deemed partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1222
Issues involved: The judgment involves the disallowance of an amount u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for assessment year 2006-07.
Issue 1 - Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,13,158/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the investment of Rs. 53,43,675/- in equity shares of listed companies, the income from which is exempt. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D based on the ITAT Special Bench decision in Daga Capital.
Issue 2 - Confirmation by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
Upon the assessee's appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowance.
Judgment Details:
The Tribunal considered the case in light of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, where it was held that Rule 8D is applicable only from Assessment year 2008-09. The High Court overruled the tribunal decision in M/s Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer to quantify a reasonable amount for the assessment year 2006-07, as Rule 8D shall not be applicable. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1221
Detention of son of appellant - smuggling of gold - violation of Section 8 (c) of the COFEPOSA or not? - it was not the case of the detaining authority at any stage that the detenu would be able to continue with his smuggling activities within India, though he could not go abroad his passport having been seized - appeal allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1220
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses under section 14-A and depreciation on UPS and Scanner.
Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned challenges to the disallowances of expenses amounting to Rs. 7,35,145 and Rs. 18,228 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] respectively. The expenses were related to the earning of exempt dividend income, and the depreciation claimed on UPS and Scanner. The A.O. applied Rule 8-D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to calculate the expenses attributable to the dividend income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ruled that Rule 8D is applicable prospectively from A.Y. 2008-09 and directed the A.O. to decide the disallowance afresh using a reasonable method for A.Y. 2006-07. The Tribunal also directed the A.O. to verify the absence of interest expenditure related to earning dividend income.
2. Regarding the claim for higher depreciation at 60% on the Scanner, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Datacraft India Ltd. and allowed the higher depreciation as a Scanner is considered an input device connected to a computer. However, the Tribunal held that the UPS does not qualify as an input or output device connected to a computer but rather as an electrical equipment supplying power. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the A.O. to recompute the depreciation for the UPS accordingly.
3. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities on the expenses disallowance issue and directing a fresh decision based on the Bombay High Court's ruling. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the higher depreciation claim on the Scanner but denied it for the UPS due to its function as an electrical equipment. The A.O. was instructed to make necessary adjustments in line with the Tribunal's directions.
This detailed analysis covers the issues related to the disallowance of expenses under section 14-A and the depreciation claims on UPS and Scanner as addressed in the ITAT Mumbai judgment.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1219
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of reopening the assessment u/s 147.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The Revenue contended that the transactions between the assessee company and its subsidiary, M/s. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. (GIL), should be treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The Assessing Officer (A.O.) reopened the assessment and added Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the transactions were normal business transactions and not covered by the provisions of section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) relied on his own order for A.Y. 2003-04 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462, which stated that trade advances do not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that commercial transactions between two companies could not be brought within the purview of section 2(22)(e).
Issue 2: Validity of reopening the assessment u/s 147
The CIT(A) held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The CIT(A) relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Cartini India Ltd. vs. ACIT 224 CTR (Bom) 82, which stated that reopening based on material already considered would amount to reviewing the assessment order. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the reasons for reopening did not indicate any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Bhavesh Developers vs. ACIT 34 DTR 125, which held that reopening after four years requires a finding of failure to disclose material facts, which was absent in this case.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 19,89,95,203/- as deemed dividend and ruling that the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 was invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that commercial transactions between companies do not fall under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) and that reopening based on a change of opinion is not permissible.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1218
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the search warrant issued u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegations of malafide intention and violation of the right to privacy.
3. Sufficiency of information to form "reason to believe" for the search.
4. Claim of immunity due to professional excellence.
5. Procedural aspects and judicial review of the search process.
Summary:
1. Legality and Validity of the Search Warrant:
The petitioner sought to quash the search warrant issued by the DGIT(Inv.), Bhopal, claiming it was unauthorized and lacked material to form reasons to believe that the petitioner possessed undisclosed income or property. The court examined the original papers and found sufficient materials were in possession of the DGIT(Inv.), Bhopal, justifying the issuance of the search warrant u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention that there was no sufficient material to form reason to believe was rejected.
2. Allegations of Malafide Intention and Violation of Right to Privacy:
The petitioner alleged that the search was conducted with malafide intention to deprive the firm of carrying out a Special Audit and to tarnish the petitioner's image, causing mental torture and social stigma. The court did not find merit in these allegations, as the search was based on sufficient material indicating substantial tax evasion.
3. Sufficiency of Information to Form "Reason to Believe":
The petitioner argued that the DGIT(Inv.) did not have sufficient information to form reason to believe that the petitioner possessed undisclosed income or property. The court referred to various judgments, including Ganga Prasad Maheshwari and Income Tax Officer v. Seth Brothers, emphasizing that the belief must be based on objective information and not mere rumor or hunch. The court found that the DGIT(Inv.) had sufficient material and rational nexus to form the belief required u/s 132(1) of the Act.
4. Claim of Immunity Due to Professional Excellence:
The petitioner claimed immunity from search due to being a professional of excellence, as per CBDT instruction No. 7/2003. The court rejected this claim, stating that sufficient materials indicated compelling evidence and confirmation of substantial tax evasion, justifying the search.
5. Procedural Aspects and Judicial Review of the Search Process:
The petitioner raised a new issue regarding the inspection of original papers, which was not permissible as it was not raised during the argument. The court, after examining the original documents, found no reason to permit inspection by the petitioner. The court reiterated that the sufficiency of reasons to believe is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned and is not open to scrutiny unless it lacks any material basis.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, with the court concluding that sufficient materials were present to justify the search warrant issued u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No order as to costs was made.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1217
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption u/s 10(38) for profits on sale of shares.
2. Addition u/s 69 for unexplained investment in National Housing Board bonds.
Summary:
Issue 1: Exemption u/s 10(38) for profits on sale of shares
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing exemption u/s 10(38) of Rs. 44,21,282/- for profits on the sale of shares, contending that the profits should be treated as business income. The AO had treated the surplus from the sale of shares as business income, arguing that the shares were shown as stock-in-trade in the balance sheet and that borrowed money was used for their acquisition. However, the assessee demonstrated that the shares were held as investments and that the balance sheet consistently showed them as such. The CIT(A) found that the shares were held as investments and not for trading purposes, and thus the profits should be treated as long-term capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the shares were acquired long back, there was no frequent trading, and the allegation of borrowed money usage was unsubstantiated. Consequently, Ground No.1 of the Revenue was rejected.
Issue 2: Addition u/s 69 for unexplained investment in National Housing Board bonds
The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made u/s 69 for unexplained investment in National Housing Board bonds. The AO had added Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investment, claiming the source was not satisfactorily explained. The assessee argued that the investment was made from the redemption of debentures received under an MOU with Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd., and the transaction was duly accounted for. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, noting that the investment was made by cheque and recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal found a contradiction in the AO's assessment order and computation of income, where no addition u/s 69 was made, but the exemption u/s 54EC was disallowed. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, finding that the investment source was well explained and directed the AO to allow the claim u/s 54EC. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in admitting additional evidence and sustaining the deletion of the addition u/s 69. Consequently, Ground No.2 of the Revenue was rejected.
Conclusion:
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld on both issues. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were rejected.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1216
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit by CIT(Appeals) and cross objection by assessee challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 147.
For the appeal, the revenue contended that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. On the other hand, the assessee raised three substantive grounds in the cross objection. Ground nos. 1 and 2 challenged the reopening of assessment u/s 147, while ground no. 3 supported the deletion of the addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh.
The facts of the case revealed that the AO reopened the assessment based on information received regarding laundering of unaccounted money. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the increase in share capital, leading to the addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh as unexplained cash credits. However, during the hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals), additional evidence was submitted by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The ld. CIT(Appeals) admitted the additional evidence and concluded that the assessee had successfully proven the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh. The decision was based on various judicial pronouncements and the failure of the AO to dispute the identity of the parties or conduct further investigations.
During the appeal, the revenue relied on the AO's order, while the assessee's counsel emphasized the evidence provided to establish the legitimacy of the transactions. The Tribunal noted the lack of details regarding the investigations in the AO's order and the rejection of the evidence produced by the assessee without valid reasons. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(Appeals)' decision to delete the addition based on the established identity of the contributors and their admitted contributions.
As a result, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection of the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment u/s 147 was deemed infructuous. The Tribunal concurred with the ld. CIT(Appeals) and upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 25.00 lakh as unexplained cash credit.
This judgment highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence to substantiate transactions and the significance of establishing the identity and legitimacy of contributors in cases involving unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1215
The High Court of Bombay ordered the Customs Authorities to pass a provisional release order for a ship purchased by petitioners within seven days. Stand over to 12th January 2011.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1214
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dismissed a miscellaneous application for recalling a Final Order dated 21.12.2009 as no grounds were found for the recall. The application was dismissed as no one appeared on behalf of the applicant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1213
Issues involved:
The appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 07th October, 2008 for assessment year 2005-06 regarding the treatment of profit on sale of shares as short-term/long-term capital gain under section 73 of the IT Act.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1:
The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the short term capital gain as speculative profit u/s. 73 of the IT Act and made an addition of Rs. 9,13,093. The assessee contended that section 73 does not apply as the company is not engaged in trading of shares but making investments only. The CIT(A) considered the submissions and material on record and deleted the addition, holding that the profit on sale of shares should be treated as short-term/long-term capital gain and not as speculation profit.
Issue 2:
The CIT(A) found that the provisions of explanation to section 73 are not applicable as the appellant did not suffer any loss on the sale and purchase of shares during the relevant year. The shares were held as investments, and any gain or loss on their sale should be taxed under the head 'capital gain' and not 'business income'. The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench's decision in the case of Kruti Marketing Ltd. supported this view. The departmental appeal was dismissed based on these findings.
Separate Judgment:
The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on various decisions to support the argument that the explanation to section 73 does not apply when shares are held as capital assets or investments, and any loss or gain should be assessed accordingly. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
In conclusion, the departmental appeal was dismissed, and the addition made by the AO was deleted based on the findings that the profit on sale of shares should be treated as short-term/long-term capital gain and not as speculation profit.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1212
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest on surplus funds.
2. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for provisions of Non-Performing Assets (NPA).
3. Allowance of interest on General Provident Fund (GPF) without affording opportunity under Rule 46A(3).
4. Deletion of addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A.
Summary:
1. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest on surplus funds:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income on surplus funds amounting to Rs. 1,22,73,385/-. The Tribunal referenced its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that interest income from reserve funds is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to its members and thus eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
2. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for provisions of Non-Performing Assets (NPA):
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the disallowance of provisions for NPAs is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal referred to its previous order, which concluded that the income resulting from disallowance of NPAs, being interest receivable from members, is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to its members.
3. Allowance of interest on General Provident Fund (GPF) without affording opportunity under Rule 46A(3):
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's plea that the additional evidence regarding the allowance of Rs. 1,83,87,962/- as interest on GPF was not confronted to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide in line with its earlier directions, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4. Deletion of addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 1,23,38,110/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A. The Tribunal noted that the dividend income of Rs. 68,200/- received by the assessee was claimed as deductible u/s 80P(2)(d) and not exempt u/s 10(38). Therefore, the provisions of section 14A were not applicable, as supported by the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v Kings Exports.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, except for the issue of interest on GPF, which was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1211
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product under the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA).
2. Applicability of the Board's order u/s 37B of the Central Excise Act.
3. Consideration of expert opinion and trade parlance in classification.
Summary:
1. Classification of the Product:
The primary issue revolves around the classification of the assessee's product, "Programmable Logic Controller" (PLC). Initially, the Assistant Commissioner classified the product under Heading 85.37 of the CETA Schedule. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reclassified it under Heading 84.71, setting aside the original adjudication. The department's appeal contests this reclassification.
2. Applicability of the Board's Order u/s 37B:
The Revenue's appeal relies heavily on the Board's order dated 09/05/1997 issued u/s 37B of the Central Excise Act, which classified PLCs under Heading 85.37. The appellant argues that this order is binding on lower authorities, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ranadey Micronutrients vs. Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner had considered the Board's order in his adjudication.
3. Expert Opinion and Trade Parlance:
The Assistant Commissioner relied on an expert opinion stating that the PLC was not an 'automatic data processing machine' as per Heading 84.71. The assessee contested this, seeking cross-examination of the expert. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the expert opinion provided by the assessee, which supported classification under Heading 84.71. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider trade parlance and the Supreme Court's judgment in N.I. Systems India P. Ltd., which classified similar goods under CTH 90.32.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The lower appellate authority is instructed to consider the Board's order dated 09/05/1997, relevant product literature, trade parlance, and the Supreme Court's judgment in N.I. Systems case. The Commissioner (Appeals) must provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing a new order.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1210
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment/appellate order.
2. Issuance of notice u/s 148 without verifying factual position.
3. Addition of Rs. 4,39,800 to the returned income based on bank deposits.
Summary:
1. Validity of Assessment/Appellate Order:
The assessee argued that the assessment/appellate order was not based on facts and circumstances and violated the provisions of the Income-tax Act and natural justice. The High Court upheld the validity of the proceedings, noting that the assessee made a capital contribution of Rs. 13.00 lakhs but did not file a return of income. The return filed in response to notice u/s 148 declared an income of only Rs. 9,630/-, which was not credible given the substantial capital contribution.
2. Issuance of Notice u/s 148:
The assessee contended that the notice u/s 148 was issued without verifying the factual position. The High Court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to the unexplained capital contribution of Rs. 13.00 lakhs. The AO's belief was based on the fact that no evidence was provided to explain the source of funds invested in the firm. The Court held that the AO rightly proceeded to take action u/s 147, dismissing the assessee's grounds.
3. Addition of Rs. 4,39,800 to Returned Income:
The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 4,39,800 deposited in the bank account. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, rejecting additional evidence regarding a Rs. 1.00 lakh loan from Shri Satish Kumar as it did not meet the conditions of rule 46A. The High Court admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. Regarding the remaining Rs. 3,39,800, the Court found that the nexus between withdrawals and deposits was not established. However, it allowed an addition of Rs. 70,000 due to unexplained opening cash-on-hand, while the rest of the deposits were explained by earlier withdrawals.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the High Court directing the AO to verify the additional evidence regarding the Rs. 1.00 lakh loan and confirming the addition of Rs. 70,000 due to unexplained cash-on-hand.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1209
Issues involved: Appeal against cancellation of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest payment.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Baroda for the assessment year 2005-06, specifically challenging the cancellation of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 5,60,757. The dispute arose from the non-deduction of tax at source from interest paid to Manibhai A. Patel, HUF, based on the submission of Form 15G by the said party.
In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount under section 40(a)(ia) as tax was not deducted at source from the interest paid to Manibhai A. Patel, HUF. The appellant contended that Form 15G was received from the party, and thus, tax deduction was not required. However, the Assessing Officer found the submission insufficient to comply with the relevant sections and invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for the disallowance.
Upon appeal, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, emphasizing that due to the submission of Form 15G, tax deduction was not necessary, regardless of whether the form was sent to the CIT. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the acknowledgment of the letter containing Form 15G submission was not provided, and thus, the disallowance should stand.
After considering the arguments, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Learned Commissioner, noting that the non-deduction of tax was justified based on the Form 15G submitted by Manibhai A. Patel, HUF, and the assessed income of the party for the relevant year. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
-
2010 (12) TMI 1208
Issues involved: Refusal of registration u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act to the assessee-society by the ld. CIT based on the nature of activities carried out by the society.
Summary:
Issue 1: Refusal of registration u/s 12AA without proper consideration and opportunity for the applicant.
The assessee appealed against the order of the ld. CIT, Madurai, dated 26.8.2010, refusing registration u/s 12AA. The grounds of appeal included the contention that the ld. CIT erred in passing the order hastily without giving sufficient opportunity for a hearing.
Issue 2: Interpretation of the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income-Tax Act.
The appeal raised concerns regarding the ld. CIT's interpretation of Section 2(15) of the Income-Tax Act, arguing that the term "charitable purpose" had been well defined by the courts and no further discussion was necessary.
Issue 3: Compliance with CBDT instructions and relevant circulars.
The appeal highlighted that the ld. CIT should have followed the instructions of the CBDT as per circular No.11 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 in assessing the charitable nature of the society's activities.
Issue 4: Nature of activities and charitable status of the hospital.
The ld. CIT's observation that the hospital was run on a commercial basis and lacked elements of charity was contested in the appeal. The appellant argued that the income source of the society should be assessed annually during the assessment proceedings.
Issue 5: Consideration of documentary evidence and proper viewpoint.
The appeal criticized the ld. CIT for not considering the documentary evidence presented during the hearing regarding the charitable activities of the hospital and for making observations without a proper understanding of the nature of the activities.
Issue 6: Totality of facts and circumstances in arriving at a conclusion.
The appeal contended that the ld. CIT failed to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case before arriving at an untenable conclusion regarding the charitable status of the society.
Final Decision:
After considering the submissions and documents, the Appellate Tribunal found that the objects of the assessee-society were charitable in nature. The Tribunal emphasized that registration u/s 12AA should be granted if the objects are charitable, and the assessment of activities should be done during assessment proceedings. Consequently, the ld. CIT was ordered to grant registration u/s 12AA to the assessee-society, and the appeal was allowed.
............
|
9911796707
