|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 848 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 992 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... llowable deduction. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the expenditure claimed by the appellant was allowable to it for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made.” 9. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the A.O. has made the disallowance without attributing any cogent reasoning. Ld.CIT(A) had given a finding that the expenditure was bare minimum and it was necessary for the assesee’s business. The case law relied upon by the ld.CIT(A) is also relevant. As such we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Accordingly we uphold the same. 10. In the result the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 991 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... k-in-trade. Merely because the dividend has not been received from shares held as investments, the nature of such shares cannot be treated as stock-in-trade. The assessee has maintained investment portfolio as well as trading portfolio. The shares in the investment portfolio have been held in Demat account. Therefore, profit on sale of shares will be assessable under the head ‘short term capital gain’ and not as business income. The assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT (supra). In view of the above discussion, it is held that the profits earned on sale of shares held as investment will be assessable under the head ‘short term capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’. We, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 990 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ls for transporting the same at the place of the assessee. The AO has merely gone by the auditor’s remarks and made the disallowance without verifying the facts. The remarks of the auditor cannot be taken into consideration in this case as against the specific provisions of law. The learned CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in relying upon several decisions of the Tribunal noted above to note that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the above decisions. The learned DR could not point out any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 4. The Cross Objection is merely filed by the assessee in support of the order of the learned CIT(A). The same is, therefore, infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19-05-2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 989 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... Act. 3. The learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that there is no mistake apparent on the court which can be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties, record perused. We find that the counsel earlier appeared before the Tribunal at the time of hearing, he has misunderstood the facts and found that the assessee has got relief vide C.I.T.(A) order dated 15-02-2008 whereas, the present appeal is against the order of the C.I.T. passed u/s.263 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the earlier counsel before the ITAT was under the bonafide on misunderstood of fact and the bonafide mistake of the counsel is mistake apparent from the record which is rectifiable u/s.254(2) of the Act. We, therefore, recall the order of the ITAT dated 16-02-2008. 5. The registry is directed to fix the case for hearing in due course. 6. Miscellaneous application filed by the assess is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06-05-2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 988 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... h) in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (supra). The impugned surplus was considered as a part of the assessee-bank’s income, primarily on account of the concerned borrowers being not traceable, in which case they would have either prevented the auction of their jewellery, or even considering their incapacity to do so for lack of funds, would have collected the surplus outstanding in their accounts, which continues to do so for years. The same thus acquired the character of a trade surplus, and the principles as enunciated in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Shree Digvijay Cement Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) were found as applicable. We find no change in the facts, so that the said decision would apply in the instant case as well. We decide accordingly. o p /o p 36. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2005-06 (in ITA 1003/Coch/2008) is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p
-
2011 (5) TMI 987 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the year. We do not see how this can make any difference to the legal principle. If the derivatives have been treated as stock-in-trade, then there is nothing unusual in the assessee valuing each derivative by applying the rule cost or market whichever is lower. o p /o p We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow the provision as reflecting in substance the loss arising on account of valuation of the closing stock. The ground is allowed.” o p /o p Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and also the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. o p /o p 32. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p 33. To sum up, assessee’s appeal is allowed in part and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.5.2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (5) TMI 986 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 116 ITD 234 and has observed that the object of section 54EC is to utilize the sale proceed of long term capital gain in the purchase of specified bonds. The Tribunal has considered the scheme of such investment in paragraph 3 and thereafter upheld the allowance of exemption u/s 54EC. The third circumstance which goad us not to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) is the letter dated 11th May, 2011 whereby REC Ltd. had given a clarification regarding joint holding of REC bonds. The corporation has pointed out that second and third holder is only for succession purpose in case of death of first holder. The cumulative setting of all these three factors persuade us not to take a different opinion than the one taken by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the revenue. 20. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.5.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 985 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... tment has not brought any evidence on record that the godowns, under consideration, let out on rent have not been used for commercial purposes. On the other hand, it is a fact that the godowns are to be used only for commercial purposes. Therefore, the godowns, which have been let out by the assessee, are in the nature of commercial establishments and are to be excluded as an item of asset for the purpose of computing taxable net wealth of the assessee in view of item (5) of clause (i) of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment years under consideration. Hence, we allow Ground No. 2 of the appeals for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 and also the only ground of appeal for assessment year 2003-04 by vacating the orders of the authorities below. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are allowed in part and whereas appeal for assessment year 2003-04 is allowed. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 984 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... on of Section 80IB(10), it is mentioned that deduction is allowable in respect of housing project approved before 31-03-2008 by local authority which includes those projects also which are approved on or before 31-03-2005 because no exception has been carved out by specifying that the amended provision are applicable in respect of those projects which are approved on or after 01-04-2005 but before 31-03-2008. Had the legislatures wanted to exempt old projects from the operation of clause-(d) of Section 80IB(10), this could have been specified by making a specific provision for new provision being applicable to only those housing projects which are approved on or after 01-04-2005 but before 31-03-2008 since it was not done, this argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is not acceptable. 15. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed. 16. In the combine result, CO of assessee is dismissed and the appeal of Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/05/2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 983 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making disallowance of loss on derivatives of ₹ 26,14,405/- by treating it as speculative loss.” 10. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out that the controversy involved in the aforesaid ground is covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Special Bench, Kolkata in the case Shree Capital Services Ltd. -vs- ACIT reported in (2009) 124 TTJ (Kol)(SB) 740. We, therefore, following the order of the ld. CIT(A), hold that the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of AO in making disallowance of loss on derivatives of ₹ 26,14,405/- by treating it as speculative loss. Hence, we decline to interfere. This ground of appeal is accordingly rejected. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 13.05.2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 982 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... oner of Income-tax(Appeals) in the light of the relevant facts and the circumstances of the case in a detailed manner. Therefore, we find it necessary to remit back the issues raised by the assessee in his appeals for the consideration of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) in accordance with law. 24. We accordingly remit back these files to the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) to consider the contentions raised by the assessee against the penalties sustained by him under sections 271D and 2271E, in the light of the facts of the case to be discussed in detail and in accordance with law. The assessee shall be given effective opportunity of being heard. 25. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. The appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes as the matters raised by the assessee have been remanded back to the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). Order pronounced on Thursday , the 5th day of May, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (5) TMI 981 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t not carrying out enquiry on acquisition of shares by the assessee which was not done as is clear from material submitted by the assessee. Once shares are not kept in her personal demat account, it could not be said to have been acquired by her in 2004 and therefore, she could apparently become owner of the shares only when shares were transferred in her own demat account on 20th May 2005 and therefore, could have only earned the short term capital gain, on their sale on 23.5.2005, 27.5.2005 & 2.6.2005. The failure of the AO to take note of and to carry out enquiries, on this aspect would clearly make his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This is apart from the other issues that payment for purchase of shares was not enquired by the AO and established by the assessee. We accordingly uphold the order of ld. CIT and dismiss the appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 31/5/11.
-
2011 (5) TMI 980 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the Tribunal order. It is pointed out that in that year also, disallowance was made of ₹ 45,85,729/- u/s. 40A(2) (b) regarding house keeping charges and the same was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the Revenue in that year on this issue was rejected by the Tribunal. 22. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04. We find that similar disallowance was made in that year, which was deleted by the Ld. C.I.T. (A) and the appeal of the revenue in that year on this issue has been rejected by the Tribunal. No difference in fact has been pointed out by the Ld. D.R and hence, we cannot take any contrary view in the present two years. Accordingly this ground of the Revenue is rejected in both the years. 23. In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31 - 05 - 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 979 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... prescribed date and the BU permission was merely issued later on is on ground to reject the claim of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), therefore, on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We may also note that the assessee specifically pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that it has been granted deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the IT Act in the preceding assessment year 2005-06, therefore, on parity of the facts the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected. Nothing is brought to our notice if any further appeal is preferred or filed in the preceding assessment year 2005-06. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances noted above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee. In the result, the departmental appeal has no merit and is dismissed. 12. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24-05-2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 978 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o be hypothetical calculation of the AO based on no evidence or material. The learned CIT(A) also noted that the AO herself has allowed 25 as variable on account of strike in the moth of April and May and other unknown factors but practically working out of production on the basis of consumption per month would not be justified. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances noted above and that there was no unreasonable or huge difference in the turnover or profit rate, we do not find any justification to reject the book results of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in accepting the book results of the assessee and resultantly deleting the addition on account of suppression of production. We accordingl8y, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. 6. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13-05-2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 977 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n explanation which could not be said to be not bona fide. We find that merely because certain disallowance has been made due to some provision of law, it could not be said that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is not the case of the Department that the explanation of the assessee was without any basis or foundation. It is a case of honest difference of opinion between the assessee and the revenue regarding the disallowance made and the applicability of the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act. In these facts of the case, we hold that no case for imposition of penalty under S.271(1)(c) of the Act could be made out by the Department. Accordingly, there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that there was no case or justification for imposing penalty under S.271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are rejected. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 976 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition.” 13. In the light of the discussions made above, it is thus clear that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Assessment Year 2005-06, which has been followed in Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2007-08. It is also seen that the Tribunal’s order passed in Assessment Year 2005-06 has been upheld by the Hon’ble High court. We, therefore, allow this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the disallowance. Thus, the issue involved in ground Nos. 1 to 4 is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 14. Ground No.5 regarding disallowance of ₹ 48,357/- under sec. 14A was not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee and hence, the same stands dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 16. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 13th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 975 - ITAT BANGALORE
Income from lease rentals under the head 'business' - The income shown by the assessee as 'income from business' was, treated by the AOs as 'income from house property' and 'Other Sources' - HELD THAT:- It was a fact that the assessee had not merely let-out its buildings for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided.
Following the ruling of highest judiciary in the case of CIT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY I VERSUS NATIONAL STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED [1967 (4) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that "In our view, the High Court was right in holding that the assessee was carrying on an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. The assessee not only constructed vaults of special design and special doors and electric fittings, but it also rendered other services to the vault-holders."
Further, an identical issue to that of the present one had cropped up before the earlier Hon'ble Bangalore Bench in the case of GLOBAL TECH PARK (P) LIMITED. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2008 (6) TMI 313 - ITAT BANGALORE-A], where it was held that "the activity was done by the assessee as a business venture and was in accordance with the main object of the company. He assessee is providing ward and watch, maintenance of common area,maintenance of drainage etc., This clearly establishes that the entire activity is in organized manner to earn profit out of investment made by the assessee as a commercial venture. Therefore arrived at a conclusion that the rental receipts of the assessee is to be assessed as 'business income'"
In conformity with the finding of the earlier Bench as well as ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in arriving at such a conclusion. It is ordered accordingly.
STCG on Sale of Land to Sister Concern - CIT (A) deleted the addition made on account of STCG on sale of the land to the assessee's sister concern - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had parted with a piece of land to its sister concern for a sale consideration which, according to the assessee, was more than the guideline rate prescribed by the State Government. Revenue had not brought any credible documentary evidence to even remotely suggest that the assessee had, in fact, attempted to suppress the sale consideration on this transactions. In view of the above facts, there was no justification on the part of the AO to bring to tax STCG without any adequacy of documentary evidence on this score. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (5) TMI 974 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... tion amount received on OERS u/s.10(10C) in favour of the assessee. The view of Mumbai Benches has been followed by Chennai Bench in consolidated order in ITA No.471/Mds/06 and others dated 30/.04.2007 in which similar issues about OERS being exempt u/s.10(10C) has been decided in favour of the assessee.’ In the case of the appellant, the facts are identical, I respectfully follow the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad “A” Bench and grant the relief to the appellant with a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption u/s.10(10C) of the Act for ₹ 5,00,000/-.” Since the Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by following decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench “A” in the case of Smt. Jaya Narayanan and Others (supra) in ITA No.1209/Ahd/2007 we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and same is hereby upheld. 5. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 05/05/2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 973 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... us Pandole (2011) 330 ITR 485 has held that once income from sale of shares has been treated as business income in an earlier year by way of assessment under section 143(3), in the next year it cannot be taken as capital gain. The facts of our case are in converse position in as much as the income from sale and purchase of shares was always declared and accepted by the assessee in the past as well as future as resulting into Rs. capital gains’, which fact has been accepted by the Revenue authorities. All of a sudden in this year alone it cannot be held that assessee was trader in shares. Taking the entire factual situation under consideration, we find that the learned CIT(A) was right in holding that the income from sale of shares is chargeable to tax under the head “capital gains” and not “business income”. We, therefore, uphold the order. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th May 2011.
............
|
