|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 935 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 802
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the calculation and grant of interest on the amount applied by the petitioner, the denial of interest on the refund amount, and the consideration of supporting documents to prove unjust enrichment.
Calculation and Grant of Interest:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, applied for refund of excess duty paid. Despite producing relevant documents, the refund was initially denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. After multiple appeals and remands, the petitioner was eventually granted the refund amount. However, the petitioner was not paid interest on the refund as per Section 11 B of the Act. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refund amount from June 2007 till the actual date of refund in 2009.
Denial of Interest on Refund Amount:
The department had denied interest on the refund amount, arguing that the petitioner did not produce necessary documents initially to prove unjust enrichment. However, after subsequent submissions of supporting documents, the department accepted the claim for refund. The court found that the petitioner should be granted interest on the refund amount from June 2007 onwards, considering the delay in processing the refund due to remands and reexaminations.
Consideration of Supporting Documents for Unjust Enrichment:
The court noted that the petitioner had submitted various documents, including Cost Accountant Certificate and other evidence, to prove that there was no unjust enrichment and that they were entitled to the refund. Despite the department's initial denial and subsequent remands, the court found that the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated their case for refund and interest. The court modified the impugned order to allow the petitioner to receive interest on the refund amount as per Section 11 B of the Act.
This judgment highlights the importance of providing necessary documentation to support refund claims and the entitlement to interest on refund amounts as per the relevant legal provisions.
-
2013 (6) TMI 801
Issues involved: Appeal filed by revenue against CIT (A) order for A.Y. 2007-08 regarding disallowance u/s 43B and addition on account of bogus creditors.
Disallowance u/s 43B:
The appellant, engaged in trading, filed return declaring income. AO assessed income at a higher amount, making disallowance u/s 43B and on account of bogus creditors. Revenue appealed against CIT (A) order deleting these additions. Tribunal considered facts and relied on case law to determine applicability of section 43B. It was observed that if the assessee is not entitled to claim a deduction, disallowance u/s 43B does not arise. As clarity was lacking, the issue was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication.
Addition on account of bogus creditors:
Regarding addition on account of bogus creditors, CIT (A) rightly noted that AO did not specify the section applied. Section 68 could not be applied as credits were from a previous year. Assuming additions were u/s 41(1), Tribunal agreed with CIT (A) citing relevant legal provisions and case laws. It was held that section 41(1) was not applicable as liabilities had not been written off or remitted. Consequently, the addition made by AO was deleted.
In conclusion, the appeal of the revenue was allowed in part, with the disallowance u/s 43B issue remanded for fresh adjudication and the addition on account of bogus creditors being deleted based on the legal analysis provided.
-
2013 (6) TMI 800
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer pricing adjustment for export of spare parts and components.
2. Rejection of external TNMM approach and application of internal TNMM.
3. Disallowance of additional depreciation on computers.
4. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill.
5. Disallowance of depreciation on leasehold rights and alternate claim for deduction over the lease period.
6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) and levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C.
Summary:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Export of Spare Parts and Components:
The Tribunal found that the assessee benchmarked its international transactions using the TNMM method based on external comparables, while the income-tax authorities used an internal TNMM approach. The Tribunal concluded that the internal TNMM mechanism was inappropriate due to functional and economic differences in the transactions. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and appropriate order in accordance with law.
2. Rejection of External TNMM Approach and Application of Internal TNMM:
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's use of external comparables for benchmarking and found the internal TNMM mechanism applied by the income-tax authorities inappropriate. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-determine the ALP of the impugned international transaction considering the external comparables and the +/-5% benefit.
3. Disallowance of Additional Depreciation on Computers:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for additional depreciation on computers installed in the factory, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The AO was directed to allow the claim accordingly.
4. Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill:
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the AO for examination in light of the Tribunal's observations in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The AO was directed to decide the issue after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Leasehold Rights and Alternate Claim for Deduction Over the Lease Period:
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on leasehold rights to the AO for re-adjudication in light of the Tribunal's observations in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The AO was also directed to consider the alternative claim for deduction of lease rentals paid in advance over the lease period.
6. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) and Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with several issues being remanded to the AO for re-examination and appropriate orders in accordance with the law and the Tribunal's observations.
-
2013 (6) TMI 799
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the time bar for demand, liability for service tax, financial difficulties of the appellant, misdeclaration by the appellant, and the requirement for pre-deposit.
Time Bar for Demand:
The appellant argued that the demand is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued after a significant period. However, the Tribunal stated that the question of time bar can only be decided at the final hearing. It was noted that there was a mis-match between the figures in the returns and the books of accounts. The appellant's failure to discharge the service tax liability on the gross amount received was highlighted. The Tribunal emphasized that the liability to pay service tax arises from receiving consideration for services rendered, regardless of whether the service recipient paid the tax. Therefore, the contention regarding time bar was rejected as unsustainable.
Liability for Service Tax:
The appellant contended that they are not liable to pay service tax on the consideration received where the recipient did not pay the tax. However, the Tribunal clarified that if consideration has been received for services, the appellant is liable to pay service tax. They explained that the entire amount received must be treated as cum-tax, and the liability apportioned accordingly. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument, stating that the liability to pay service tax is based on receiving consideration, irrespective of the recipient's tax payment.
Financial Difficulties of the Appellant:
The appellant raised concerns about their financial position, requesting leniency due to financial difficulties. The Tribunal acknowledged the financial challenges but noted that the appellant had received consideration for services rendered. Even if the entire amount received was considered cum-service tax, the tax liability would be lower. The Tribunal declined to accept the plea of financial hardship while passing the interim order, emphasizing the need to consider the interests of the Revenue and the balance of convenience.
Misdeclaration by the Appellant:
The Revenue argued that the case involved a clear misdeclaration by the appellant, citing discrepancies between the ST-3 return figures and the books of accounts. They referred to previous Tribunal decisions to support their position on the payment of service tax on the total amount charged for services. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's stance and emphasized that expenses incurred for service provision cannot be excluded for the purpose of service tax levy.
Requirement for Pre-deposit:
Considering the lack of a prima facie case against the service tax demand, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of a specified amount within a set period. Compliance with the pre-deposit requirement would result in the waiver of the balance of service tax, interest, and penalties, with the recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. The decision aimed to protect the interests of the Revenue and maintain the balance of convenience.
-
2013 (6) TMI 798
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of Security Deposit based on allegations of aiding fraudulent practices and claiming illegal DEPB credit.
Revocation of CHA License:
The appellant's CHA license was revoked and Security Deposit forfeited due to allegations of aiding and abetting conspiracy involving fraudulent practices. The suspension of the CHA license was challenged before the Tribunal, which set aside the suspension order as no evidence was found implicating the appellant in the fraudulent activities. The Tribunal observed that no incriminating documents were recovered from the appellant's office, and no evidence showed the appellant's direct involvement in the fraudulent shipping bills. The suspension order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to proceed with the inquiry under CHALR, 2004. However, during the inquiry, the appellants were not provided with the necessary export declarations for their defense, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that proceeding without supplying the demanded documents was a gross violation of natural justice and set aside the impugned order with directions to provide the necessary documents to the appellants before proceeding further.
Fraudulent Availment of DEPB Credit:
The Revenue contended that the appellants were involved in fraudulent availment of DEPB script without exporting the goods, justifying the revocation of the CHA license. However, the Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence implicating the appellants in the fraudulent activities. The appellants maintained that they had not dealt with the export under the bogus shipping bills and requested signed export declarations for their defense, which were not provided to them during the inquiry. The Tribunal held that the failure to supply these crucial documents to the appellants constituted a violation of natural justice. As a result, the impugned order revoking the CHA license was set aside, and the appellants were directed to be provided with the necessary documents before further proceedings under CHALR, 2004.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing a gross violation of natural justice in the proceedings against the appellants. The impugned order revoking the CHA license was set aside, and directions were given to supply the demanded documents to the appellants before proceeding with the matter under Rule 22 of CHALR, 2004.
-
2013 (6) TMI 797
Deduction under Section 80-IA(4) denied - validity of ex-parte order passed by tribunal - Held that:- As per Rule 25 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, when, on the date of hearing, the appellant appears and respondent does not appear, the Tribunal can dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the appellant. Proviso to the said rule also states that if the respondent satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance, then the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order. However, in our opinion, this rule cannot be interpreted to mean that in every case where decision has been reached by the Tribunal on merits and no glaring or apparent mistake whatsoever is shown therein, it is still to be recalled. Tribunal had taken a view that assessee was not eligible for a deduction under Section 80-IA after taking into account all the aspects relating to the case.
Assessee admittedly was only a partnership and not a limited company. As per the Revenue, assessee was only executing civil work for different organizations on contract basis. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that assessee being not a company registered in India, it could not avail of the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. Tribunal also came to correct factual finding that nothing was on record to show that the agreement entered by the assessee with Central Government, State Government, Local Authority or any statutory body were for developing any infrastructural facilities. Argument of the learned A.R. that partnership firm was a body established or constituted under a Centre or State Act cannot be accepted for the simple reason that had it been so, the Legislature would not have made specific limitation by virtue of the above clause, whereby only companies and corporate bodies of similar nature have been made eligible for claiming such deduction. - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (6) TMI 796
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of the date of approval of the housing project by the local authority.
3. Compliance with the conditions prescribed in clause (a) of section 80IB(10) of the Act.
Summary:
1. Eligibility for Deduction u/s 80IB(10):
The primary issue in this appeal is the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 1,46,24,573/- for the housing project 'Oakwoods' at Viman Nagar, Pune. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the assessee's claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal.
2. Determination of the Date of Approval:
The crux of the controversy is determining the date on which the housing project was "approved by the local authority" as per Clause (a) to section 80IB(10) of the Act. The AO considered the date of first approval as 02.11.2003, while the assessee argued that the relevant date is 19.01.2005, when the revised plan was approved by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC). The CIT(A) supported the assessee's view, noting that the assessee firm came into existence on 20.07.2004 and obtained development rights on 01.10.2004. The building plan approval dated 19.01.2005 was for the amalgamated plot of 7826.89 sq. mtrs., and all previous approvals were canceled.
3. Compliance with Conditions in Clause (a) of Section 80IB(10):
The CIT(A) found that the project commenced with the approval dated 19.01.2005, and the final completion certificate was issued on 20.12.2008, within the permissible period ending on 31.03.2009. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee complied with the conditions prescribed in clause (a) of section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed this view, noting that the Explanation (i) to clause (a) of section 80IB(10) applies to the project of the assessee and not to a project owned by previous owners on a different plot size. The Tribunal also referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Vandana Properties, which supports this interpretation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 795
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi regarding assessment for AY 2009-10.
Issue 1: Treatment of interest earned on bank deposits
The Assessing Officer treated the interest earned on bank deposits as income from business or profession. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to assess the interest earned on bank deposits under the head income from business or profession. The Tribunal observed that the exceptions provided in Explanation to Section 73 were applicable to the case, and the interest earned on bank deposits should be treated as income from business and profession. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in this regard, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
Issue 2: Classification of loss on purchase and sale of shares
The Assessing Officer treated the loss on sale and purchase of shares as speculative loss under Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) held that the loss on sale and purchase of shares was not speculative loss and deserved to be treated as business loss. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that the exceptions provided in Explanation to Section 73 were applicable to the case, and the loss arising from trading of shares cannot be considered as speculative loss. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal in this regard, upholding the decision of the CIT(A).
Issue 3: Set off of brought forward business losses and depreciation
The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to set off brought forward business losses and depreciation against the interest earned on bank deposits by the assessee. Since the Tribunal had already decided in favor of the assessee on the treatment of interest earned on bank deposits and classification of loss on purchase and sale of shares, it upheld the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the set off of losses and depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground as well.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the treatment of interest earned on bank deposits as income from business or profession, classification of loss on purchase and sale of shares as business loss, and the set off of brought forward business losses and depreciation.
-
2013 (6) TMI 794
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of capital gains as business income.
2. Disallowance of derivative loss as speculation loss.
3. Ad-hoc addition for low household withdrawals.
4. Invocation of provisions u/s 14A.
5. Disallowance of interest expenditure.
6. Charging of notional interest.
Summary:
Issue 1: Treatment of Capital Gains as Business Income
For the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessee declared short term capital gain of Rs. 28,77,661/- and long term capital gain of Rs. 1,88,815/- from the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated these gains as business income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Assessee argued that the shares were held as investments and not as stock in trade, citing a consistent history of treating shares as investments since the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had separate portfolios for trading and investment, and the shares sold were acquired before 31st March 2004. The Tribunal held that the gains should be treated as capital gains, not business income, and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
For the assessment year 2006-07, the facts were identical to the previous year, and the Tribunal decided in favor of the Assessee, treating the gains as capital gains.
For the assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal found that most shares were acquired between 1997 and 2004 and ruled that the long term capital gain should be treated as such, not as business income.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Derivative Loss as Speculation Loss
The Assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 3: Ad-hoc Addition for Low Household Withdrawals
The Assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 4: Invocation of Provisions u/s 14A
For the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 5: Disallowance of Interest Expenditure
For the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 6: Charging of Notional Interest
For the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the Assessee on the primary issue of treating capital gains as business income. The other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 793
Does advance or loan can be regarded as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - the Respondent Assessee Company is not a shareholder of M/s Rajrani Exports Private Limited - inspite of having common shareholders with none of them held 20% shares - The conditions precedent for attracting Section 2(22)(e)are not satisfied which are - the company making the payment should be a closely held company - the payment should have been made out of profits - and the payment of the loan or advance is not in the ordinary course of business activities of the company - Thus there is no question of law involved in this appeal - Appeal dismissed
-
2013 (6) TMI 792
Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. u/s 69B for AY 2007-08. 2. Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. u/s 69B for AY 2008-09. Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. u/s 69B for AY 2007-08The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 4,22,30,000/- made u/s 69B by CIT(A). The addition was based on a loose paper found during a search at the premises of Mr. Haren Choksi, which indicated an investment in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. The AO concluded that since the cheque payment of Rs. 1,22,30,000/- was correct, the cash portion of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- would also be correct. However, the assessee contended that the investment was made by his wife and son, who were directors in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd., and not by him. CIT(A) noted that the paper did not conclusively prove the assessee's investment and that the AO had not brought any material evidence to support the addition. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the addition was made on inconclusive facts and relying on partial information from the loose paper. The appeal by the department was dismissed. Issue 2: Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. u/s 69B for AY 2008-09The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 23,40,800/- made u/s 69B by CIT(A). The addition was based on loose papers found during a search at the premises of Mr. Haren Choksi, which indicated an investment in Avis Motors Pvt. Ltd. The AO added the amount to the assessee's income, stating that the entries matched with the books of the assessee's wife and son. However, the assessee contended that the papers were rough working estimates and did not belong to him. CIT(A) observed that the papers were rough estimates and did not contain any evidence of actual investment by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO had failed to bring any material evidence to justify the addition. The appeal by the department was dismissed. Conclusion:In both cases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO u/s 69B, as the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the investments were made by the assessee. The appeals filed by the department were dismissed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 791
Whether the interest on NPA is chargeable to tax - Held that Mere characterisation of an account as a NPA would not by itself be sufficient to say that there is uncertainty as regards realizability of income or interest income thereon - accrual of interest is a matter of fact, to be decided on the basis of examination of the status of each party - grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose
disallowance of deduction u/s80P(2)(d)in respect of dividend income from co-op banks - Held that assessee is required to furnish the correct status of the bank to establish that the provisio of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act are applicable on the assessee being a primary agriculture credit society or a rural development bank - allowed for statistical purpose
-
2013 (6) TMI 790
Issues involved: The principal issue in this case concerns the validity of the assessee's claim for loss sustained on the write off of non-recoverable advances made for the purchase of machinery and due to non-acceptance of delivered machinery for its business.
Details of the judgment:
1. The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai heard an appeal by the Assessee against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07.
2. The assessee, a company engaged in various businesses, claimed losses on non-recoverable advances made for machinery purchase and non-accepted machinery delivery. The outstanding advances were forfeited by the supplier, and the machinery delivery was not accepted, leading to the write-off of these amounts as irrecoverable losses.
3. The parties presented their cases, with the assessee claiming the losses as bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) or as business losses. The Revenue argued that the losses were capital in nature and not deductible in computing business income.
4. The Tribunal found it difficult to accept the losses as not on capital account, emphasizing that the losses were incurred due to the assessee rescinding relevant contracts for capital assets. The Tribunal referenced various case laws to support its decision that the losses were capital in nature and not deductible as business losses.
5. Even if considered as business losses, the Tribunal noted that the year of allowability needed to be determined, as losses u/s.28 could only be allowed in the year they were sustained. The Tribunal highlighted specific events and notices related to the losses occurring in earlier years, indicating that the losses could not be said to have arisen in the relevant year.
6. The Tribunal analyzed decisions relied upon by the assessee, distinguishing them based on the nature of advances and losses incurred. It concluded that the losses claimed by the assessee were capital in nature and not deductible as business losses, except for a separate amount related to prepaid expenses, which was held as deductible as a business loss.
7. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing further verification by the Assessing Officer regarding the nature and timing of the deductible business loss related to prepaid expenses.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld that the losses claimed by the assessee were capital in nature and not deductible as business losses, except for a specific amount related to prepaid expenses, which was deemed deductible as a business loss.
-
2013 (6) TMI 789
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the appeal as the circular dated 1st July, 1994, related to sales tax acts and did not apply to income tax proceedings. The appellant's argument was rejected as no distinction was made between Roller Flour Mills and Flour Mills/Rice Mills under the Income Tax Act.
-
2013 (6) TMI 788
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2004-05. Validity of jurisdiction under sec.153C of the Act and non-furnishing of material during assessment. Maintainability of appeal by legal representative of deceased assessee.
Issue 1: Assessment and Addition of Income
The deceased assessee, engaged in the business of exporting fabric and garments, had his return summarily processed for the impugned Assessment Year. The department alleged that the assessee and his daughter-in-law paid on-money for the purchase of flats, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,93,57,057/- to the assessee's total income. The Assessing Officer relied on material collected during a search and issued a notice under sec.153C of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this action, which was challenged by the assessee in appeal.
Issue 2: Jurisdiction and Non-furnishing of Material
The assessee contested the jurisdiction assumed under sec.153C of the Act and argued that the material gathered was not provided during assessment proceedings. Despite the contentions raised, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the arguments and affirmed the Assessing Officer's decision. The appeal also raised concerns regarding the lack of prior approval under sec.153B of the Act, highlighting procedural irregularities.
Issue 3: Maintainability of Appeal by Legal Representative
Following the demise of the assessee, his son sought to continue the appeal. The Revenue contended that the son had not inherited any property nor was named as a trustee in the deceased assessee's will, therefore lacking the locus to appeal. Citing relevant sections of the Act, the Revenue argued that the son did not qualify as a legal representative and referred to case law to support their position. The Tribunal found that the son had not succeeded to the assets or been appointed as a trustee, thus lacking the legal standing to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of valid locus in favor of the appellant.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the son of the deceased assessee, despite being a family member, did not meet the legal criteria to represent the deceased in the proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The decision emphasized the importance of valid locus and legal representation in maintaining appeals, ultimately upholding the Revenue's position on the maintainability of the appeal.
-
2013 (6) TMI 787
Issues involved: Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of bad debts claim.
Summary:
The appeal was against a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of a bad debts claim. The Assessing Officer disallowed a bad debts claim of Rs. 6,65,360 and imposed a penalty, which was confirmed by CIT(A). The appellant argued that the claim was based on legal fiction and cited judicial precedents. However, CIT(A) held that the claim did not fall under section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act and was inaccurate. The appellant's arguments were deemed unconvincing and lacking evidence. The penalty was upheld by CIT(A). The appellant contended that the claim was made in good faith and relied on legal decisions to support their case. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the claim was bona fide and all relevant facts were disclosed. It was held that the disallowance of the claim did not warrant a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The penalty imposed by the AO was canceled, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.
This judgment highlights the importance of disclosing all material facts and establishing the bona fide nature of a claim to avoid penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
-
2013 (6) TMI 786
Issues involved: Review of conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay, compliance with pre-deposit order, reconsideration of order dated 4.10.2012, failure to comply with pre-deposit order, transgression of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 1 - Review of conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay:
The Miscellaneous Application sought review of the conditional order of waiver of pre-deposit and stay granted on 4.10.2012. The order directed pre-deposit of Rs. 5.50 lakhs within four weeks and compliance report by 4.12.2012. Waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount during the appeal's pendency or for six months, whichever is earlier, was granted. However, no proof of compliance was recorded by the Registry on 23.11.2012. Subsequent applications seeking reconsideration were dismissed due to lack of representation by the appellant.
Issue 2 - Compliance with pre-deposit order:
The petitioner claimed to have deposited Rs. 1,50,000 on 13.12.2012 and Rs. 1,57,003 on 23.3.2013. These deposits did not comply with the condition stipulated in the order dated 4.10.2012, for which time was extended until 12.4.2013. The failure to comply with the pre-deposit order led to the rejection of the appeal.
Issue 3 - Transgression of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Due to the failure of the pre-deposit order and transgression of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal was ultimately rejected. The petitioner's attempts to seek reconsideration were also dismissed, as previous applications had been rejected for lack of justification.
This judgement highlights the importance of compliance with pre-deposit orders and the consequences of failing to adhere to such directives under the relevant legal provisions.
-
2013 (6) TMI 785
Issues involved: Rejection of books of accounts and confirmation of GP rate at 10% against GP rate of 7.83%; Disallowance of depreciation in respect of addition to the building; Confirmation of additions at the rate of 10% on various expenditures.
Rejection of books of accounts and confirmation of GP rate at 10% against GP rate of 7.83%:
The AO rejected the books of accounts and estimated the GP at 10% due to a decline in the net profit ratio compared to earlier years. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection but noted that the AO's calculation was not correct. The Tribunal found the rejection unjustified as there was no evidence of unreliable books or vouchers. The Tribunal also considered the substantial increase in expenses and turnover, concluding that the rejection was not warranted. The grounds were allowed.
Disallowance of depreciation in respect of addition to the building:
The AO disallowed depreciation on an addition to the building, stating there was no necessity for the addition. The CIT(A) allowed the issue in part, directing the AO to rectify the addition. The Tribunal held that if the additions were made by the assessee, depreciation should be allowed, and directed the AO to allow depreciation on the addition made to the building. Ground No.4 was allowed.
Confirmation of additions at the rate of 10% on various expenditures:
The AO made adhoc additions on various expenditures, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal sustained the total addition of Rs. 1 lakh, stating it would meet the ends of justice due to lack of proper vouchers for some expenses. The appeal was allowed in part.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of books of accounts and the confirmation of the GP rate at 10%, allowing depreciation on the building addition, and sustaining the total addition of Rs. 1 lakh on various expenditures.
-
2013 (6) TMI 784
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2003-04 regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on pre-payment of sales tax liability and disallowance u/s 80M of the IT Act 1961.
Pre-payment of sales tax liability issue: The Tribunal noted that the addition made under section 41(1) for pre-payment of taxes was deleted in quantum proceedings, citing the Special Bench decision in the case of Sulzer India Ltd Vs JCIT. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's grievance based on the Special Bench decision, stating that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No.1 in favor of the assessee.
Disallowance u/s 80M issue: The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of deduction u/s 80M on dividend distributed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under section 80M based on section 115-0(5) of the IT Act. However, the Tribunal, following the legal position established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, held that the nature of the dividend distributed, not necessarily pertaining to the relevant period, should be considered for allowing the deduction. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant relief to the assessee based on this observation, allowing Ground No.4 in favor of the assessee.
Conclusion: As the quantum additions were already deleted, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed the same. The appeal filed by the revenue was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (6) TMI 783
Benefit under Section 10B - Tribunal [2010 (9) TMI 1093 - ITAT HYDERABAD] allowing claim - Held that:- This appeal is not required to be admitted, as the learned Tribunal has not done anything wrong, either on facts or law, while following its earlier decision in the same assessee’s case.Since nowhere it is suggested that the aforesaid earlier decision of the Tribunal has not been accepted or that an appeal has been preferred against the said decision, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
