|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1251 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1094
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest u/s 244A on refund for Assessment Year 2006-07.
2. Estimation of net profit ratio for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
3. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C.
Summary:
Issue 1: Entitlement to Interest u/s 244A on Refund for Assessment Year 2006-07
The assessee filed a return declaring NIL income and claimed a refund of Rs. 7,29,074. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the refund but did not grant interest u/s 244A, reasoning that the return was not filed as per section 139 and no application u/s 119(2)(b) was filed. The CIT(A) allowed interest for 8 months, excluding 49 months attributable to the assessee's delay. The Tribunal directed the AO to refer the matter to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner for a final decision as per section 244A(2).
Issue 2: Estimation of Net Profit Ratio for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09
The assessee declared income at 4% of turnover following a search and seizure action. The AO estimated the income at 8% of turnover, which was reduced to 6% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no evidence supporting the higher estimations by the AO and CIT(A). It restored the income to 4% of the total turnover, as declared by the assessee under section 132(4).
Issue 3: Charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C
The assessee contested the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal held that charging interest is consequential and mandatory. The AO was directed to recompute the interest while giving effect to the Tribunal's order.
Conclusion:
The appeals for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were allowed, and the appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 was allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1093
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to waiver and stay sought by appellants in respect of adjudged dues, penalty imposed under Section 114 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, fraudulent drawback claims, financial hardships, and liability of individuals involved in fraudulent transactions.
Adjudged Dues and Penalty:
The appellant in Appeal No. C/258/2012 was asked to pay over Rs. 1.37 crores as drawback denied by the adjudicating authority for 154 Shipping Bills filed in the name of 12 persons with different IE Codes. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2 crores was imposed on the same appellant under Section 114 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The appellant in Appeal No. C/264/2012 challenged the penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on him under the same provisions. The appellants sought waiver and stay, with one appellant filing a miscellaneous application for amendments in the Memorandum of Appeal.
Role of Individuals in Fraudulent Transactions:
Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed was found at the center of the controversy, receiving over Rs. 1.37 crores in drawback for sub-standard goods under Shipping Bills filed by another individual. A penalty of Rs. 2 crores was imposed on Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed for his involvement in the fraudulent drawback claims. The appellant contested the penalty amount, claiming a lesser liability. However, the evidence supported the findings against Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed, who was held jointly and severally liable to pay the drawback amount.
Financial Hardships and Predeposits:
The appellant's plea of financial hardships was not substantiated with evidence, leading to a direction to predeposit Rs. 50 lakhs towards the drawback demand and Rs. 15 lakhs towards penalty within four weeks. Compliance was to be reported to the authorities, with waiver and stay granted for the balance amounts subject to due compliance.
Liability of Another Individual:
Shri Vijay Anand, involved in filing Shipping Bills, claimed innocence regarding fraudulent intent. However, statements given by Shri Vijay Anand under the Customs Act revealed his involvement in the fraudulent transactions. He was found to have deliberately participated in the fraudulent activities, leading to a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on him. Shri Vijay Anand was directed to predeposit Rs. 20 lakhs towards the penalty, with waiver and stay granted for the balance amounts upon compliance.
Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the liability of individuals in fraudulent transactions, the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, considerations of financial hardships, and the requirement for predeposits to secure waiver and stay for the balance amounts.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1092
Issues involved: Disallowance of commission payments, applicability of TDS deduction u/s 194H, deletion of addition made by Assessing Officer, grounds for appeal before Tribunal.
The department filed a Miscellaneous Petition challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.104/Bang/2011, which dismissed the appeal based on the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the claim of commission payments by the assessee. The department contended that the remand report did not address the issue of TDS deduction u/s 194H on commission payments. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, leading to the department's appeal before the Tribunal.
The assessee, a trader of silk sarees and garments, disclosed an income of &8377;30,53,320 for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant portion of commission payments totaling &8377;1,52,28,784, as he believed that only 2% of commission was allowable. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on a favorable remand report from the Assessing Officer, prompting the department to appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of &8377;1,39,50,088 made by the Assessing Officer. The department filed a Miscellaneous Petition citing non-consideration of specific grounds related to the applicability of TDS deduction u/s 194H and disallowance of commission payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961.
During the proceedings, it was noted that the commission payments ranged from &8377;1500 to &8377;2400, with the Assessing Officer disallowing amounts exceeding 2%. The Tribunal found that the issue of TDS deduction u/s 194H and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) did not arise from the CIT(A)'s order, as it was not addressed in the remand report or by the CIT(A) herself. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the department, as there was no apparent mistake in the original order.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1091
Assessee assessed u/s 44BB Or under section 44DA - Held that:- The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 in both the sections, cannot have the effect of altering or effacing the fundamental nature of both the provisions or their respective spheres of operation or to take away the separate identity of Section 44BB. We do not, therefore, see how these amendments can assist the Revenue's contention in the present case, put forward by the learned Senior Standing Counsel. We, therefore, agree with the AAR that in the present case the profits shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB of the Act and not section 44DA.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1090
Issues involved:
The common issue in the appeals filed by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti's of Sriganganagar, Gajsinghpur, Padampur, and Raisinghnagar pertains to the claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Issue 1: Claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act
The appeal by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti [Grain], Sriganganagar, against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30.6.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 involved a claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. The samiti's income was exempt u/s 10(20) until A.Y. 2002-03, but became taxable post an amendment by the Finance Act, 2002. The samiti, registered u/s 12A, filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 22.9.2009 declaring NIL income, later revising it on 25.9.2009 as a Charitable Trust. Notably, an excess expenditure of &8377; 42,46,504/- was incurred out of surplus in the Public Deposit Account [P.D. A/c].
The issue in this appeal and others was found to be covered in favor of the appellants by a decision of the Bench dated 1.9.2009. The decision clarified that the power of the appellate authority, including the ld. CIT(A), to entertain a new claim for deduction is not limited by the powers of the assessing authority. The judgment emphasized that the ld. CIT(A) can entertain a claim for deduction made before him without the need for a revised return. The facts in other cases were similar, with the only difference being in the figures of receipts and expenditure.
The issues in all the appeals were found to be squarely covered by a Jodhpur Bench decision rendered in ITA No. 385/JU/2009. Consequently, all the appeals of the assessees were allowed, following the Tribunal order. The order was pronounced in the Court on 04th December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1089
Addition of unexplained investment - Delivery of possession of land - Held that - Assessee had given the possession of land in February-2009 to the purchaser and the purchaser could enjoy the fruits of property only after that date - the seller may retain the deed pending payment of price and in that case there is no transfer until the price is paid and the deed is delivered - Hence the assessee has rightly treated the transfer of land in AY 2009-10 and therefore the AO was not right in taxing the income on sale of land in AY 2008-09 - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1088
Issues Involved:
1. Application for Special Leave Petition (SLP) by students.
2. Shifting of the college without requisite approvals.
3. Non-inclusion of the college in the Centralised Admission Process (CAP).
4. Withdrawal of approval by AICTE.
5. Legal principles regarding AICTE's role and authority.
6. Compliance with AICTE regulations and procedural requirements.
7. Time schedule for grant of approval and admissions.
Summary:
1. Application for Special Leave Petition (SLP) by students:
IA Nos.1-2 of 2012 were applications filed by two students of Parshavanath College of Engineering for permission to file a special leave petition against the judgment dated 22nd August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The applications were allowed subject to just exceptions. SLP (C) No.26086 of 2012 was preferred by the appellant-Trust against the same judgment. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
2. Shifting of the college without requisite approvals:
The appellant-college shifted its location to a new site in May 2008 without prior approval from AICTE, No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the University of Mumbai, the State Government, or an Occupation Certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Thane. AICTE's Expert Committee noted these deficiencies during an inspection on 28th June, 2008. Despite these issues, AICTE granted an extension of approval for the academic years 2008-2011.
3. Non-inclusion of the college in the Centralised Admission Process (CAP):
A show cause notice was issued by AICTE on 18th May, 2010, stating that the college had shifted to another location without obtaining prior approval. This led to the college not being included in the CAP by the State Government. The appellant challenged this non-inclusion by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which allowed the petition and directed the college to be included in the CAP.
4. Withdrawal of approval by AICTE:
On 7th January, 2011, AICTE passed an order withdrawing the approval granted to the appellant-college due to non-compliance with regulations, including the lack of an Occupation Certificate and necessary permissions. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this withdrawal, noting that the college had shifted without necessary approvals and did not have clear title to the land.
5. Legal principles regarding AICTE's role and authority:
The AICTE Act, 1987, aims to improve the technical education system across the country, granting AICTE exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determine standards of higher education. AICTE's role is advisory and recommendatory concerning universities, emphasizing the importance of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms.
6. Compliance with AICTE regulations and procedural requirements:
Clause 9.22 of the AICTE Handbook for Approval Process 2008 outlines the procedure for changing the location of an institution, requiring NOCs from the State Government and affiliating body, and submission of land documents. The appellant-college failed to comply with these requirements, leading to the withdrawal of approval by AICTE.
7. Time schedule for grant of approval and admissions:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time schedule for grant of approval and admissions. The AICTE should inform applicants of deficiencies within three weeks, and the entire process should be transparent and fair. The court approved a fixed and unaltered time schedule for admissions to ensure consistency and fairness.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court issued several directions, including strict adherence to the grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, disciplinary action for non-compliance, and re-allocation of students to recognized colleges. The AICTE was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 for its irresponsible working, recoverable from the erring officials' salaries.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1087
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the allowability of depreciation in relation to capital expenditure under section 11 of the Income Tax Act and the set off of deficit of earlier years against the income of the current year.
Depreciation on Capital Expenditure:
The appellant, a charitable institution registered under section 12A of the Act, claimed depreciation on capital expenditure incurred for charitable objectives. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the depreciation, considering the volume of business from trade exhibitions as dominant and not incidental to the charitable trust. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] directed the AO to allow depreciation on capital expenditure, citing a previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's favor for a different assessment year. The Tribunal upheld that capital expenditure for trust objectives should be considered as application of income, and any resulting asset used for business is eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal also referenced a judgment by the High Court of Bombay supporting this view. Despite a conflicting judgment from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal, being bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decision, ruled in favor of allowing depreciation on the capital expenditure.
Set Off of Deficit of Earlier Years:
The AO treated the loss from exhibition activities as a business loss due to its significant contribution to total receipts and lack of separate accounting. However, the CIT(A) deemed the exhibition activities as incidental to the trust's main objectives and directed the set off of losses from exhibitions against other income. Additionally, the CIT(A) instructed the AO to set off the deficit of earlier years against the income of the current year, following a High Court of Bombay decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directives, emphasizing that excess expenditure or deficit from earlier years should be considered as application of income in subsequent years, in line with the High Court's ruling.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, allowing both the grounds in favor of the assessee based on the legal principles discussed and the precedents set by the High Court of Bombay. The decision was made in the absence of representation from the assessee during the appeal hearing.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1086
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of inflated sales prices and low production costs.
3. Sufficient infrastructure and manpower for manufacturing.
4. Evidence of movement of goods.
5. Comparison of profit rates with sister concerns.
6. Application of section 80IA(10).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80IC:
The primary issue raised by the Revenue was the disallowance of the deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not have sufficient infrastructure and manpower to manufacture the entire products on its own and was getting it done as job work. The CIT(A) had allowed the deduction, which was contested by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had substantial investment in fixed assets and had provided evidence of manufacturing activities, including audited books of accounts and barrier receipts for the movement of goods.
2. Allegation of Inflated Sales Prices and Low Production Costs:
The AO alleged that the assessee was inflating its sales prices charged from its sister concerns and had low production costs, indicating low production. The AO compared the rates charged for printing books for outside parties and sister concerns, concluding that the assessee was diverting profits to itself. The Tribunal found that the AO's comparisons were flawed as they did not consider the differences in the nature, quality, and quantity of the books printed. The CIT(A) had rightly observed that the AO did not confront the assessee with the material used for comparison, violating the principles of natural justice.
3. Sufficient Infrastructure and Manpower for Manufacturing:
The AO contended that the assessee did not have sufficient infrastructure and manpower to manufacture the entire products on its own. The Tribunal noted that during a survey, it was found that the assessee had employed a large number of workers and incurred significant expenses on electricity, freight, and fuel/oil. The CIT(A) had observed that the AO's conclusion was based on incorrect comparisons and assumptions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had sufficient infrastructure and manpower for manufacturing.
4. Evidence of Movement of Goods:
The AO held that there was no evidence of movement of paper from Punjab to Himachal Pradesh and of printed material/books from Himachal Pradesh to other states. The assessee had provided barrier receipts and other documentary evidence to show the movement of goods. The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly considered this evidence and had relied on statements from parties without confronting the assessee. The CIT(A) had correctly accepted the assessee's explanation and evidence.
5. Comparison of Profit Rates with Sister Concerns:
The AO compared the profit rates of the assessee with its sister concerns, concluding that the assessee had higher profits due to inflated sales prices. The Tribunal noted that the AO's comparison was flawed as it did not account for differences in the nature of business and expenses between the assessee and its sister concerns. The CIT(A) had observed that the AO's comparison was not based on accurate data and had rightly rejected the AO's findings.
6. Application of Section 80IA(10):
The AO invoked section 80IA(10), alleging that the assessee's higher profits were due to transactions with sister concerns. The CIT(A) found that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the higher profits were due to such transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had failed to satisfy the necessary conditions to invoke section 80IA(10). The Tribunal noted that the transactions with sister concerns were at arm's length prices and there was no evidence of any arrangement to inflate profits.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s orders allowing the deduction under section 80IC. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusions were based on flawed comparisons, incorrect assumptions, and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to show that it had the necessary infrastructure and manpower for manufacturing and that its transactions with sister concerns were at arm's length prices.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1085
Remission or cessation of the trade liability standing - addition u/s 41 - Held that:- It is based on factual matrix of the matter and the liability in the end of the year if not proved can certainly be added u/s 41(1) of the Act but it is still left open for the assessing authority to examine and opportunity is available before the assessing authority to produce the creditor and if unable to give the exact address, it will be open for the assessing authority to add back the same as per law. We do not find any substantial question of law arises in the facts & circumstances of the case which may require any consideration.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1084
Whether non-compliance of Section 42, non-involvement of any independent witness at any stage of the investigation and the presence of PW5 at the spot being so very doubtful, thus, compel this Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1083
Issues Involved:
The application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 254/2012 involving Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application
1. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 254/2012, involving Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC.
2. Allegations include illegal removal of goods worth over `10 crores from the custody of CONCOR using forged documents.
3. Investigation revealed involvement of the petitioner based on statements of co-accused and recovery of goods.
4. The petitioner's earlier bail application was rejected due to evasion and alleged forgeries in the case.
5. The petitioner filed a second bail application before the High Court.
6. The petitioner argued against custodial interrogation, citing recovered goods and specimen signatures comparison.
7. Petitioner claimed mala fide registration of FIR due to previous court order regarding interrogation presence.
8. State vehemently opposed bail, stating ongoing investigations and possibility of larger conspiracy.
9. Court considered liberal use of anticipatory bail but emphasized discretion based on judicial principles.
10. Court noted the gravity of the offense involving forged documents and complicity within Customs, requiring custodial interrogation.
11. Distinguished the present case from a previous case involving financial implications and highlighted the need for thorough investigation.
12. Considering the seriousness of the offense, the Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
13. Rejected the oral prayer for interrogation in the presence of counsel due to lack of specific prayer in the application.
This judgment highlights the importance of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the gravity of the offense and the need for thorough investigation in cases involving significant financial implications and potential larger conspiracies.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1082
Issues: Application for modification and/or variation of the order dated 2nd November, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 985 of 2012
On the issue of extending time for reply to show cause notice:
The writ petition sought orders to restrain the respondents from proceeding with personal hearing without giving reasonable time to file a reply and providing copies of relevant documents. The Court extended the time to reply by two months upon deposit of &8377; 1 crore. However, before the expiry of the two months, officers were summoned for cross-examination. The Court modified the order to restrain proceedings until the expiry of the time to file a reply.
On the issue of providing copies of relevant documents:
The petitioner pointed out that the documents were voluminous and they had only been offered inspection, not copies. The Court extended the time to file a reply till 15th February, 2013. The petitioners were granted daily inspection of the documents to enable them to complete the inspection and file their reply within the extended timeframe.
The application, GA No. 3171 of 2012, was disposed of, and urgent certified copies of the order were to be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1081
Reopening of assessment -Whether AO not applied the mind and simply acted upon the information given by the ADI(Inv). Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee filed return of income on 28.7.1987 in the office of the Income-tax Circle-II Kanpur. The re-assessment proceeding for the Assessment Year 1987-88 was initiated in 1997-98 and in between the period of 10 years the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer might have changed. The figure furnished in the return filed for the Assessment Year 1987-88 were acted upon even though the loans/other amounts said to have been stated in the return has been added.
Tribunal is perfectly justified in quashing the order of reassessment proceedings as the action was mechanical in nature and without ascertaining as to whether the assessee had disclosed the factum of purchase of plot and cost of construction in the original return.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1080
Issues Involved:1. Time-barred rebate and refund claims. 2. Delay due to customs authorities' actions. 3. Legal provisions and precedents regarding the time limit for filing claims. Summary:Issue 1: Time-barred rebate and refund claimsThe applicant, M/s. Gravita India Ltd., filed a rebate claim of Rs. 4,70,121/- and a refund claim of Rs. 4,918/- on 10-09-2009 for duty paid on exported goods. The original authority rejected the claims as time-barred, citing the one-year limitation period stipulated u/s 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the applicant to file a revision application u/s 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue 2: Delay due to customs authorities' actionsThe applicant argued that the delay in filing the claims was due to the customs authorities' failure to promptly provide the necessary export documents and shipping bills. They contended that the delay was not their fault and cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Cosmonant Chemicals Vs. UOI, 2009 (233) ELT-46 (Guj.), to support their claim. Issue 3: Legal provisions and precedents regarding the time limit for filing claimsThe Government noted that u/s 11B, the refund includes the rebate of duty on exported goods and must be filed within one year from the relevant date. The relevant date is defined as the date on which the ship or aircraft carrying the goods leaves India. The Government emphasized that there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing rebate claims u/s 11B. Several judgments were cited to support the rejection of time-barred claims:
- The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in IOC Ltd. Vs. UOI, SCA No. 12074/2011, held that the one-year limitation period is mandatory and cannot be extended.
- The Hon'ble CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in Precision Controls Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, 2004 (176) ELT 147 (Tri-Chennai), stated that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to allow claims beyond the limitation period.
- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Others Vs. Ms. Katji & Others, 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC), and UOI Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company, 1996 (84) ELT 401 (SC), reinforced that statutory time limits must be adhered to.
- The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Everest Flavours Ltd. Vs. UOI, 2010 (282) ELT 481 (Bom), upheld the rejection of a rebate claim filed beyond the one-year period. Conclusion:The Government concluded that the rebate claim filed after the stipulated one-year period is time-barred and upheld the rejection of the claim. The revision application was rejected accordingly. So, ordered.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1079
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act for assessment year 2007-08. Interpretation of the term "rural branch" in relation to Co-operative banks.
Issue 1: Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act:
The assessee claimed deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) at 7.5% of Gross total income and 10% of aggregate advances made by rural branches. The AO disallowed the claim as no provision was made as required u/s 36(1)(viia). The appeal before Ld CIT(A) was unsuccessful. The Tribunal referred to a previous case regarding the definition of "rural branch" and decided in favor of the assessing officer, setting aside the order of Ld CIT(A).
Issue 2: Interpretation of "rural branch" in relation to Co-operative banks:
The alternative plea raised by the assessee contended that the definition of "rural branch" under sec. 36(1)(viia) does not apply to Co-operative banks. The Tribunal analyzed relevant provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and concluded that a Co-operative bank falls under the category of a "non-scheduled bank" as per the definition provided. Therefore, the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court regarding the definition of "rural branch" was held to apply to the assessee, and the alternative plea was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the assessing officer on this issue.
In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee against the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) was dismissed. The Tribunal also affirmed the interpretation of "rural branch" in relation to Co-operative banks, following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1078
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the Right to Information (RTI) application seeking information about the official visits of the President of India, specifically regarding the composition of the delegation, expenses incurred, and availability of information in a compiled form.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Availability of Information in Compiled Form
The Appellant sought information on the official visits of the President of India, focusing on the details of the visits by the then President, both within and outside the country, including the composition of the delegation and expenses incurred. The Respondents stated that the desired information was not centrally available in a compiled form and would require significant resources to compile. The Commission acknowledged that the expenditure data is maintained across various ministries and departments, making it impractical for a single CPIO to compile. However, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide details of the delegation for visits beyond the information already provided to the Appellant.
Issue 2: Miscellaneous Expenditure Details
The Appellant requested a breakdown of the miscellaneous expenditure related to the President's visits, which was not clearly provided in the response. The Commission agreed with the Appellant that the components under the miscellaneous category should be explicitly stated. Consequently, the Commission directed the Controller of Accounts and the CPIO of the Ministry of External Affairs to inform the Appellant about the components constituting the miscellaneous expenditure.
Additional Observation
The Commission noted a growing public interest in official visits by high dignitaries and emphasized the importance of transparency in sharing information about such visits. It recommended that the President Secretariat consider uploading details of the delegation and expenditure on official visits on the official website to enhance public access to this information.
In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, and copies of the order were to be provided to the parties free of cost.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1077
Issues Involved: Deduction under Section 80HHC, Deduction under Section 10B, Rejection of Books of Account, Estimation of Income, Allowability of Depreciation, Payment of Royalties, Allowability of Deduction under Section 80IA, Self-made Vouchers.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction under Section 80HHC:
The assessee challenged the CIT's order directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the deduction under Section 80HHC for A.Ys. 2000-01 to 2004-05. The AR conceded that the Assessing Officer granted the deduction in the consequential orders, thus the grounds were not pressed. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
2. Deduction under Section 10B:
For A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the CIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the allowability of deduction under Section 10B. The AR conceded that the deduction was granted in the consequential orders, and thus the grounds were not pressed. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
3. Rejection of Books of Account:
The CIT observed that the Assessing Officer did not make proper inquiries while estimating the income at 12.5% of the turnover and allowing depreciation. The CIT set aside the orders and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders after making necessary inquiries. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account due to incomplete and self-made vouchers but modified the estimation of income to 8% on main contract receipts and 5% on sub-contract receipts, disallowing depreciation.
4. Estimation of Income:
The estimation of income at 12.5% by the Assessing Officer was considered high. The Tribunal modified it to 8% on main contract receipts and 5% on sub-contract receipts, citing the Special Bench decision in Arihant Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.
5. Allowability of Depreciation:
The Tribunal held that no separate deduction for depreciation is allowed once the income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Indwell Constructions vs. CIT.
6. Payment of Royalties:
The CIT noted that the Assessing Officer did not examine the deductibility of royalty payments or the applicability of Section 40(a)(i). The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the records and allow deduction on eligible turnover.
7. Allowability of Deduction under Section 80IA:
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee carried on the development of infrastructure facilities cumulatively with activities like design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction. If so, the assessee would be eligible for deduction under Section 80IA.
8. Self-made Vouchers:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenditure supported by self-made vouchers, as there was a chance of inflating the expenditure.
Separate Judgments Delivered:
The Tribunal delivered separate judgments for different assessment years and issues, modifying some orders and remitting others for fresh consideration.
Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with specific directions to the Assessing Officer to re-examine certain issues and modify the estimation of income and allowability of deductions based on the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper inquiry and adherence to legal precedents in making assessments.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1076
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of income from undisclosed sources.
2. Failure to discharge onus by producing documentary evidence.
3. Reliance on cash flow statement without supporting documentary evidence.
4. Whether the CIT(A) should have upheld the AO's order.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Income from Undisclosed Sources
The assessee's appeals arose from the order dated 22.4.2010 for AY 2001-02 and separate orders dated 23.4.2010 for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06 by CIT(A)-Jamnagar. The AO made an addition of Rs. 12,64,938/- to the assessee's total income, citing deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee and his family members as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, explaining that the deposits were from agricultural income, advances received back, and unsecured loans, supported by revenue records and confirmations from respective parties.
Issue 2: Failure to Discharge Onus by Producing Documentary Evidence
The AO argued that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to explain the deposits totaling Rs. 15,40,938/- in his bank account. The assessee claimed the deposits were from agricultural income and recovery of old loans but did not maintain books of account due to illiteracy. The CIT(A) found the explanation satisfactory, supported by revenue records and detailed tabulation of deposits.
Issue 3: Reliance on Cash Flow Statement Without Supporting Documentary Evidence
The AO contended that the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee's AR was baseless and unsupported by documentary evidence. However, the CIT(A) accepted the cash flow statement, noting that the AO did not comment on its correctness in the remand report. The CIT(A) concluded that the deposits were fully explained by agricultural income, advances received back, and unsecured loans.
Issue 4: Whether the CIT(A) Should Have Upheld the AO's Order
The AO argued that the CIT(A) should have upheld the AO's order, as the assessee did not maintain books of account and the explanation provided was unreliable. The CIT(A) disagreed, finding the explanation satisfactory and supported by evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not bring any adverse material to dispute the explanation provided by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals for AY 2001-02 and, by parity of reasons, for AYs 2002-03 to 2005-06. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was justified, and the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1075
Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue regarding indexed cost of acquisition for long term capital gain u/s 48 of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2006-07.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-II, Baroda regarding the indexed cost of acquisition for long term capital gain. The assessee inherited a property in 1998 and sold it in 2006. The dispute arose over the calculation of capital gain using the "Cost Inflation Index" based on the year of acquisition. The AO recalculated the capital gain based on the year of inheritance, resulting in a higher assessment. The ld.CIT(A) referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the year 1981 as the base year for indexing the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a previous case, stating that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed based on the year in which the previous owner first held the asset, not the year in which the assessee became the owner. As the property was inherited by the assessee, the cost of acquisition was deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the "Cost Inflation Index" as on 1.4.1981. Citing a precedent from ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the decision of the ld.CIT(A) regarding the indexed cost of acquisition for long term capital gain.
............
|
9911796707
