|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 938 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1225
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of labour charges of Koramangala Unit in total turnover for calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC.
2. Treatment of Sales Tax Refund and Miscellaneous Income for deduction u/s 80HHC.
3. Disallowance of car expenses and depreciation.
4. Levy of interest u/s 234D.
Summary:
1. Inclusion of Labour Charges of Koramangala Unit in Total Turnover for Calculation of Deduction u/s 80HHC:
The AO included the turnover of the Koramangala unit amounting to Rs. 3,20,94,126 in the total turnover for the calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC, arguing that the unit's business was interlaced with the main business of the assessee. The assessee contended that the profits from labour charges were in the nature of other receipts and thus excluded from the total turnover. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the rule of consistency.
2. Treatment of Sales Tax Refund and Miscellaneous Income for Deduction u/s 80HHC:
The AO excluded the sales tax refund of Rs. 6,14,188 and miscellaneous income of Rs. 2,167 from the calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC, treating them as other income not connected with the main business. The Tribunal, referencing its previous decision and the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Alfa Laval India Ltd. V/s CIT, directed the AO not to exclude the sales tax refund while calculating the deduction u/s 80HHC. However, the exclusion of miscellaneous income of Rs. 2,167 was upheld due to lack of supporting material.
3. Disallowance of Car Expenses and Depreciation:
The AO disallowed 20% of car expenses and depreciation due to the absence of a logbook proving exclusive business use. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, directed the AO to reduce the disallowance to 1/6th instead of 20%, acknowledging the possibility of personal use.
4. Levy of Interest u/s 234D:
The AO levied interest u/s 234D, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as consequential. The Tribunal, referencing the Special Bench decision in ITO V/s Ekta Promotors (P) Ltd., held that section 234D, effective from 1.6.2003, could not be applied to the assessment year 2003-04 or earlier years. Consequently, the levy of interest u/s 234D was deleted.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions for each issue as detailed above. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1224
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act regarding the taxation of a gift received in the form of IMD Bonds, worth US $ 50,000, by the assessee. The main issue is whether the gift of IMD Bonds should be taxed u/s 56(2)(v) as income from Other Sources.
Summary of Judgment:
Issue 1: Taxation of Gift of IMD Bonds u/s 56(2)(v)
The CIT directed the A.O. to tax the gift of IMD Bonds received by the assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act, as it exceeded the specified limit and was transferred to the assessee after the relevant date. The assessee contended that since IMD Bonds are securities and not a "sum of money," section 56(2)(v) should not apply. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 56(2)(v), (vi), and (vii) and noted that only the receipt of "sum of money" during specific periods was taxable. As IMD Bonds are considered securities falling under "Shares and Securities," the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 56(2)(v) were not applicable to the gift of IMD Bonds received before 1.10.2009. Citing a similar judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's direction to tax the IMD Bonds u/s 56(2)(v) and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the gift of IMD Bonds should not be taxed u/s 56(2)(v) as it was received before the relevant date specified in the Act. The direction of the CIT to tax the gift was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1223
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of suppression of production.
2. Deletion of disallowance of interest on TUF Loan.
3. Deletion of disallowance u/s 35D.
4. Deletion of disallowance on account of unexplained transactions.
Summary:
1. Suppression of Production:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 38,93,055/- added by the AO for suppression of production due to low oil gain and high wastage. The AO compared the assessee's oil gain and wastage with other similar units and found discrepancies. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing that similar low oil gains and high wastage percentages were accepted in other cases like Nakoda Textile Industries Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's comparison was not appropriate and the assessee's explanations were reasonable.
2. Interest on TUF Loan:
The AO disallowed Rs. 10,15,014/- as interest on TUF Loan, arguing that the interest subsidy accrued to the assessee should have been accounted for. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the interest subsidy had not accrued as of 31.03.2005 and the right to receive the subsidy arose only after the sanction order dated 04.09.2008. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the interest subsidy pertained to the next financial year and not the year under consideration.
3. Disallowance u/s 35D:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7,87,008/- u/s 35D, arguing that loan processing charges for expansion should be amortized. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that loan processing charges are revenue expenses and not covered under section 35D(2). The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing with the AO that the expenses should be amortized as per section 35D.
4. Unexplained Transactions:
The AO disallowed Rs. 12,22,800/- based on transactions recorded in an impounded file, which were not reflected in the regular books of accounts. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, considering the impounded papers as "dumb papers" with no clear description or names. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the figures on the loose paper were ambiguous and did not conclusively pertain to the assessee.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on issues 1, 2, and 4, but reversing the decision on issue 3.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1222
Issues involved: Challenge to the validity of sub-section (5) of Section 59 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 as amended by U.P. Act No.11 of 2009, and quashing of related orders passed by the Commissioner under Section 59.
Summary:
The petitioner, engaged in selling 'Super Plasticizer' used in concrete, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the amendment to sub-section (5) of Section 59 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 as arbitrary and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought to quash certain orders passed by the Commissioner under Section 59, affecting the taxation on the sale of 'Super Plasticizer'. The Commissioner had classified the goods as falling under the residuary clause of Schedule V, subject to a tax rate of 12.5%.
The petitioner contended that the amended provision making the Commissioner's orders binding on all assessing and appellate authorities violated constitutional principles of natural justice, as affected parties were not given a hearing or provided with copies of the orders. The petitioner also argued that the provisional assessment was influenced by the Commissioner's order under Section 59(5), which was legally flawed.
The Court, while refraining from delving into the merits of the case, stayed the operation of the impugned amendment to Section 59(5) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. It directed that orders passed under Section 59(1) would only be binding on the applicant who made the representation to the Commissioner, and not on all assessing and appellate authorities. The assessing authority was given the discretion to determine whether the goods sold by the petitioner fell within Schedule V for taxation as a residuary item.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1221
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Life Membership Fee: Whether the Life Membership Fee received by the assessee-club is to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.
2. Validity of Proceedings under Sections 147 and 148: Whether the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act is justified.
3. Limitation and Delay: Whether the delay of 51 days in filing the appeals should be condoned.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Life Membership Fee:
The primary issue is whether the Life Membership Fee received by the assessee-club should be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The assessee-club, a private limited company, argued that the Life Membership Fee is a capital receipt used for creating infrastructure and not a revenue receipt. The Assessing Officer, however, treated the Life Membership Fee as a revenue receipt, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the cases of CIT vs Beldih Club and CIT vs United Club, which held that entrance fees received by a club are revenue receipts and taxable. The Tribunal concluded that the Life Membership Fee is indeed a revenue receipt, emphasizing that the fee is non-refundable and non-transferable, and thus, it cannot be treated as a liability or capital receipt. The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd and Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd vs CIT, which supported the view that such fees are revenue receipts.
2. Validity of Proceedings under Sections 147 and 148:
The assessee contended that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked new discovery of facts. The Tribunal, however, did not specifically address this contention in detail in the judgment. The focus remained on the nature of the Life Membership Fee and its taxability.
3. Limitation and Delay:
The appeals were filed with a delay of 51 days, which the assessee attributed to following incorrect legal advice to file a writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal found this delay to be neither willful nor wanton but caused by a bona fide reason. Despite the Department's protest, the Tribunal chose to condone the delay, allowing the appeals to be admitted as maintainable.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), concluding that the Life Membership Fee received by the assessee-club is a revenue receipt and taxable. The appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 8.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1220
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest claimed u/s 36(1)(iii).
2. Disallowance of commission expenses u/s 37(1).
3. Disallowance of vehicle maintenance expenses.
4. Disallowance of telephone expenses.
5. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses.
6. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
7. Disallowance of aircraft expenses.
8. Claim for exemptions u/s 54EA and 54EB.
9. Computation of capital gains on sale of bonus shares.
10. Disallowance of legal and professional expenses.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Interest Claimed u/s 36(1)(iii):
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 7,89,06,865/- on the ground that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] restricted the disallowance to Rs. 68.58 lakhs. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication to ascertain whether the advances were made out of borrowed funds.
2. Disallowance of Commission Expenses u/s 37(1):
The AO disallowed 10% of the inland sales commission amounting to Rs. 6,38,067/- due to lack of evidence of services rendered. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, directed the AO to delete the disallowance.
3. Disallowance of Vehicle Maintenance Expenses:
The AO disallowed 2% of vehicle expenses and corresponding depreciation, totaling Rs. 1,67,987/-, due to the absence of a logbook. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
4. Disallowance of Telephone Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 50,568/- out of telephone expenses. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance, directing the AO to delete it, following the precedent.
5. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 68,410/- out of foreign travel expenses. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance, following its earlier decisions.
6. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses:
The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of miscellaneous expenses for lack of details. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the ad hoc disallowance, following the precedent.
7. Disallowance of Aircraft Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 4,65,367/- out of aircraft expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, following its earlier decisions against the assessee.
8. Claim for Exemptions u/s 54EA and 54EB:
The AO denied exemptions of Rs. 48.50 crores claimed u/s 54EA and 54EB, stating the investments were made out of borrowed funds. The CIT(A) allowed the exemptions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing that the source of investment need not be the same money received from the sale of the capital asset.
9. Computation of Capital Gains on Sale of Bonus Shares:
The AO computed capital gains at Rs. 1,09,39,24,646/- instead of Rs. 1,07,69,27,796/- claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the gains as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its earlier decisions.
10. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Expenses:
The AO disallowed 5% of legal and professional expenses amounting to Rs. 10,36,184/- on an ad hoc basis. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
Decision:
The assessee's appeal is partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal is partly allowed. Decision pronounced on 30th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1219
Issues involved:
The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 19.03.2008 regarding the deletion of an addition made by AO by adopting GP ratio of 16.71% u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961.
Issue 1: Gross Profit Calculation
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading of Art Silk Cloth, showed a significant fall in GP during the year, attributing it to mistakes in finalizing design and quality of cloths. The AO observed discrepancies in production, sales, and purchase registers, questioning the quality of goods sold and the credibility of the explanation provided by the assessee. The AO rejected the books of accounts u/s 145 of the Act and estimated gross profit at 16.78%, making an addition of &8377; 34,65,892.
Issue 2: Double Claim of Shortage
The assessee claimed shortage in closing stock of grey and finished cloth, which was admitted to be claimed twice due to human error. The AO questioned the credibility of this claim, highlighting inconsistencies in the stock statements and lack of concrete evidence to support the double deduction. The AO concluded that the books of accounts were manipulated, leading to the addition on account of low GP.
Judgement Summary:
The ld. CIT(A) overturned the AO's decision, stating that the regular method of accounting followed by the assessee should be accepted, and there was no justification for rejecting the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the gross profit addition made by the AO. The Revenue appealed this decision before the ITAT AHMEDABAD. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the Revenue did not challenge the finding that the book results could not be rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. Citing precedent, the Tribunal confirmed the acceptance of the book results and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1218
Issues involved: Challenge to the decision of Tribunal regarding deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision confirming the deletion of penalty of Rs. 1,00,06,728 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty, which was later deleted by CIT(Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty without proper reasons, as the claim made by the assessee was ultimately found not sustainable.
Issue 2: Reasoning for deletion of penalty
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by CIT(Appeals) citing that the deductions claimed by the assessee were not false or fabricated. The Tribunal noted that the disallowances were made on technical points, which were highly disputable and required a special bench. It was observed that the bad debts and expenses claimed by the assessee were not found to be bogus or inflated, and were based on the facts and figures provided. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had made full disclosures and the claims, though disallowed, were not found to be bogus. Therefore, the order deleting the penalty was upheld as the issue was highly debatable.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the deletion of penalty as the assessee had made genuine claims, full disclosures, and the issue was highly debatable.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1217
Issues involved:
The rejection of application for continuation of approval u/s. 80G and the finding that expenditure for religious purposes exceeded the limit laid down in section 80G(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1: Rejection of application for continuation of approval u/s. 80G
The assessee-Sansthan filed an application for renewal of approval u/s. 80G, which was rejected by the CIT due to expenditure exceeding the 5% limit for religious purposes. The expenditure included amounts spent on offerings to saints and payments to a charitable trust in connection with a religious event. The CIT considered the event as religious due to worship of Shree Ram, a Hindu deity. The assessee argued that the event was a seminar on moral values, not a religious activity. The Tribunal held that the expenditure was for charitable, not religious, purposes as it aimed to spread moral values, not religious teachings. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant approval based on the application.
Issue 2: Exceeding limit for religious purposes under section 80G(5B)
The CIT found that the expenditure on the religious event exceeded the 5% limit specified in section 80G(5B) due to payments made in connection with the event. The Tribunal, however, distinguished between religious and charitable purposes, emphasizing that the event aimed to propagate moral values, not religious teachings. Referring to a previous court decision, the Tribunal highlighted the thin line between religious and charitable activities. Since the trust's objects were not religious in nature and the expenditure was for spreading social values, the Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was charitable, not religious. Therefore, the CIT's denial of approval u/s. 80G was deemed erroneous, and the Tribunal directed the approval to be granted.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1216
Income arising from transfer of shares as “Income from Capital Gains” instead of as “Income from Business & Profession” - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the transactions in question are investment in nature and therefore, income from sale of the shares of the 3 companies made during the year requires to be taxed as income under the head “capital gains”.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1215
Unexplained cash deposits - CIT (Appeals) correctly deleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence admitted and after proper verification of the same. CIT (Appeals) has himself has verified the evidence and has recorded a finding of fact that the source of deposit in the bank account has been explained by the assessee with the help of books of accounts and bank account of proprietorship concerns. Under such circumstances no purpose will be served by remitting back the matter to the assessing officer when the ld. CIT (Appeals) has himself had verified the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the source of deposit was duly verified. Merely because the assessing officer had objected would not be a ground for remitting the case back to the assessing officer particularly when the matter has been examined and decided by the ld. CIT (Appeals).
-
2011 (8) TMI 1214
Issues Involved:
1. Interest on term deposit assessed as income from other sources.
2. Net receipt of interest should be taken into account.
3. Foreign exchange rate difference on opening debtors.
4. Deduction u/s 10A in respect of sale of scrap.
5. Disallowance of software expenses as capital expenditure.
6. Computation of book profit u/s 115JB.
7. Increasing book profits by the amount of provision of leave encashment.
Summary:
Issue 1: Interest on Term Deposit
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the call center business, claimed deduction u/s 10A of Rs. 47,54,672/-. The assessee received interest income on term deposits of Rs. 28,20,208/- and claimed that this should be treated as part of eligible profit for deduction u/s 10A. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the interest income as income from other sources. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the interest income was not derived from the actual conduct of business of the undertaking. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India, held that interest earned on surplus funds deposited in the bank does not come under the first degree of source of profit derived from the business of the undertaking. Thus, this issue was decided against the assessee.
Issue 2: Net Receipt of Interest
The assessee argued that the net receipt of interest (interest received minus interest paid) should be considered. The Tribunal noted that the fixed deposits were not made in connection with the business activity or requirement of the business but were surplus funds. Therefore, the interest earned had no direct nexus with the business expenditure, and the claim of netting of interest was not allowed. The Tribunal cited the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs Asian Star Co Ltd, which emphasized that deductions must comply with the provisions enacted by Parliament. This issue was also decided against the assessee.
Issue 3: Foreign Exchange Rate Difference
The assessee did not press the common ground regarding the foreign exchange rate difference on opening debtors. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 4: Deduction u/s 10A in Respect of Sale of Scrap
The assessee did not press the ground regarding deduction u/s 10A in respect of the sale of scrap of Rs. 11,944/-. This ground was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 5: Disallowance of Software Expenses
The assessee did not press the ground regarding the disallowance of software expenses to the extent of Rs. 34,37,478/- as capital expenditure. This ground was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 6: Computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB
The assessee did not press the ground regarding the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, where an amount of Rs. 76,99,25,000/- ought to have been reduced under clause (ii) of the Explanation to sec. 115JB. This ground was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 7: Increasing Book Profits by Provision of Leave Encashment
The assessee did not press the ground regarding the increase in book profits by the amount of provision of leave encashment of Rs. 26,39,000/-. This ground was dismissed as not pressed.
Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities on all contested issues. The order was pronounced on the 12th day of August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1213
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Valuation of Closing Stock u/s 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1: Deduction of Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The assessee claimed a bad debt deduction of Rs. 65,00,000, which was an Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) given to VHEL Industries Ltd. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed the claim on two grounds: (1) the debt had not become irrecoverable as a suit was filed for recovery, and (2) the assessee was not in the money lending business, thus not covered u/s 36(2). The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in TRF Ltd. Vs CIT, which clarified that post-amendment to Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. Since the assessee had written off the amount, the first objection of the A.O. was invalid.
Regarding the second objection, the Tribunal cited various decisions, including ITW Sugar India Ltd. Vs DCIT and Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT, which held that ICDs are treated as debts and qualify for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal noted that the interest income from the ICD was assessed as business income in earlier years, satisfying Section 36(2)(i). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 65,00,000 as bad debt.
Issue 2: Valuation of Closing Stock u/s 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The A.O. added Rs. 2,24,328 to the closing stock value for excise duty on raw materials and packing materials, which the CIT(A) confirmed but directed verification of payment u/s 43B.
The Tribunal noted that two accounting methods exist for excise duty on purchases: gross method (where excise duty is included in purchase cost) and net method (where excise duty is debited to a recoverable account). If the gross method is followed, the addition is justified. However, if the net method is followed, no actual addition is required as the excise duty component would be adjusted.
The Tribunal directed the A.O. to verify the accounting method used by the assessee and make necessary adjustments accordingly, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee for the bad debt deduction and remanded for verification regarding the valuation of closing stock. The Tribunal's directions were to ensure compliance with the legal provisions and proper accounting practices.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1212
Issues involved: Cross appeals relating to the assessment year 2006-07 regarding deduction of loan processing charges u/s 24(b) and disallowance of interest u/s 50C.
Assessee's Appeal (ITA No: 3713/Mum/2010):
The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the business as a builder, acquired properties by issuing debentures and paid loan processing charges of Rs. 55,00,000. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the interest claimed by the assessee based on section 50C, stating that only proportional interest related to the market value of the properties was allowable. The CIT(A) disallowed the processing fee as a deduction, but the Tribunal held that processing fee falls under the definition of "interest" u/s 2(28A) and should be allowed as a deduction u/s 24(b). The Tribunal referred to a previous case and a CBDT circular to support this interpretation, ultimately allowing the processing fee deduction and allowing the appeal.
Department's Appeal (ITA No: 4526/Mum/2010):
The department appealed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest u/s 50C. The Tribunal, citing a previous case, held that the Assessing Officer's action was not justified as the borrowed funds were utilized for property purchase, and there was no legal provision for disallowing interest on excess consideration paid for property. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest, dismissing the department's appeal based on the identical facts and controversy. Ultimately, the department's appeal was dismissed.
In conclusion, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the department's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1211
Issues Involved:
1. Re-opening of assessment u/s 147.
2. Computation of deduction u/s 80 HHC.
3. Allowability of deduction u/s 80IB.
Summary:
1. Re-opening of assessment u/s 147:
The assessee challenged the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147, arguing it was based on a change of opinion without fresh material. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and later re-opened within four years due to excess claims of deductions u/s 80 HHC and 80IB. The AO had not considered the application of provisions of Explanation (baa) to other income (interest, rent, etc.) in the original assessment. The Tribunal held that since the AO had not formed any opinion on this issue initially, the re-opening was not based on a change of opinion and was legally valid.
2. Computation of deduction u/s 80 HHC:
The AO deducted 90% of other income (interest, rent, etc.) from the business profits, resulting in no income available for deduction u/s 80 HHC. The assessee argued that certain incomes (sales tax set off, excise duty refund, sundry balance written back) were directly related to manufacturing activities and should not be excluded. The Tribunal held that while sales tax set off, excise duty refund, and sundry balance written back are integral to business profits and should not be reduced, interest and rental income must be reduced as per Explanation (baa). Consequently, the AO's decision to disallow the deduction of Rs. 8,05,666/- u/s 80 HHC was upheld.
3. Allowability of deduction u/s 80IB:
The assessee contended that all items of other income should be considered for deduction u/s 80IB. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Liberty India Ltd., which stated that only profits directly derived from the business of the undertaking are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. Hence, interest and rental income, being incidental business income, were not eligible for deduction. However, income from sales tax set off, excise duty refund, and sundry balance written back, arising from business operations, were considered eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the re-opening of assessment and disallowance of deductions u/s 80 HHC and 80IB for interest and rental income, while allowing deductions for other business-related incomes.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1210
Issues involved: Appeal against orders dated 30.12.2009 by ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Common issues in both appeals.
ITA No. 4718/Mum/2010 (AY-1998-99):
The assessee company requested recalculation of interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. AO rejected the request, citing no apparent mistake. CIT(A) directed AO to allow interest on refund amount after MAT credit. Revenue appealed, citing proviso to section 115JAA (2). Parties agreed issue covered by Supreme Court decision in CIT V/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd. Issue settled in favor of assessee based on recent court decisions. Tribunal upheld CIT(A) decision, allowing interest after MAT credit verification.
ITA No. 4719/Mum/2010 (AY-1999-2000):
Facts similar to AY-1998-99. Parties agreed to consider AY-1998-99 plea. Tribunal upheld CIT(A) decision to allow interest u/s 244A after MAT credit verification. Revenue's grounds rejected. Appeals dismissed.
Conclusion: Tribunal upheld CIT(A) decisions in both appeals, allowing interest under section 244A after MAT credit verification. Revenue's appeals dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1209
Addition while computing the book profit u/s.115JB on account of provision for doubtful debts - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee had made the provisions for doubtful debt. In fact the assessee itself had before the Tribunal contended that such provisions for the doubtful debt cannot be added for the computation of book profit for Section 115JA since there is no clause which speaks of adding back such provisions for diminution of value of assets. It is not in dispute that such provisions for doubtful debts would be which amount to diminution of value of assets. That being the position, in our opinion the case of the assessee is squarely covered under the clause (g) to explanation to Section 115JA.
We are unable to see any demarcation between the provisions which would reduce the value of the assets against a situation where the value of the assets may come down to 'Nil'. In either case there would be diminution in the value of assets. Even when the value of the assets is brought down to 'Nil' from the previously existing value, it can still be stated that there has been a diminution in the value of the assets. In any case no such facts arise in this appeal.In the result, the question is answered in favour of revenue
-
2011 (8) TMI 1208
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(Appeals) order u/s 54F deduction for assessee owning multiple residential properties.
Summary:
1. The Revenue appealed against CIT(A) order directing A.O. to allow deduction u/s 54F for the assessee. Revenue argued that owning partial rights in residential property does not qualify for deduction u/s 54F, citing various judgments.
2. The assessee had sold shares and invested in a residential property, claiming deduction u/s 54F. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction as the assessee owned two other residential properties. CIT(A) held that joint ownership does not disqualify the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 54F, citing ITAT Chennai Bench decision.
3. The Revenue contended that a part owner cannot be considered as owning a residential house for section 54F purposes, citing a Mumbai ITAT decision. The assessee argued in favor of CIT(A) order, referencing a Supreme Court decision on fractional ownership.
4. The Tribunal noted conflicting judgments from Chennai and Mumbai Benches. Mumbai Bench's interpretation of the term "own" in section 32 was applied to section 54F, leading to dismissal of Revenue's appeal as the assessee was only a part owner of the residential properties.
Judgment: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, stating that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F as a part owner does not qualify as owning a residential house. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1207
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition as public interest litigation.
2. Pendency and delay in disposal of applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. Legal framework and interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. Practical difficulties faced by District Magistrates (DMs) and Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (CMMs) in disposing of applications.
5. Guidelines to streamline the procedure for handling applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Petition as Public Interest Litigation:
The court observed that although banks and financial institutions appeared to be serving their personal interests by seeking possession of secured assets, the involvement of public money justified the petition's conversion into public interest litigation. The court emphasized that the recovery of loans advanced by banks is in the public's interest, making the petition maintainable as public interest litigation.
2. Pendency and Delay in Disposal of Applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act:
The court acknowledged the significant backlog of applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in various districts, particularly in Mumbai, Pune, and Thane. The data presented by the petitioners, covering the period from 1/1/2005 to 31/12/2010, was undisputed by the State. The court noted that the disposal of these applications often takes an excessively long time, necessitating appropriate directions for expeditious disposal.
3. Legal Framework and Interpretation of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act:
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Transcore v. Union of India, Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India, and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, to elucidate the legal framework of the SARFAESI Act. It was emphasized that the functions performed by DMs and CMMs under Section 14 are ministerial in nature, requiring no hearing for borrowers or issuance of notices. The court reiterated that Section 14 does not permit adjudication of disputes and that the remedy under Section 17 is available for grievances.
4. Practical Difficulties Faced by DMs and CMMs:
Reports from the CMM, Esplanade, Mumbai, and DM, Thane, highlighted practical difficulties such as heavy workload, lack of staff, and infrastructural facilities contributing to delays. The court acknowledged these challenges but stressed that they should be addressed at the government level or administratively, without overlooking the need for timely disposal of applications under the SARFAESI Act.
5. Guidelines to Streamline the Procedure:
To address the issues and streamline the procedure, the court laid down specific guidelines in addition to those established in Trade Well v. Indian Bank. These guidelines include:
- Banks/Financial Institutions must annex a copy of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act with proof of dispatch and an affidavit of service.
- Applications must state that the secured assets are within the jurisdiction of the concerned DM/CMM.
- The office of the DM/CMM must verify compliance with requirements within 15 days of application filing.
- No notice is required to be issued to the borrower or any other person at the time of hearing the application.
- Applications must be disposed of within two months from the date of proper presentation.
- Orders must authorize taking physical possession of secured assets with reasonable force and direct police assistance.
- A panchnama and inventory of secured assets must be drawn before handing over possession.
Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with the issuance of guidelines to ensure the expeditious handling of applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Registrar General was directed to send a copy of the judgment to all DMs and CMMs within the court's jurisdiction.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1206
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for income earned from specific activities.
2. Alleged violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act and compliance with Section 11(4) requirements by a Trust.
Interpretation of exemption under Section 11:
The Revenue raised a question regarding the Tribunal's direction to allow exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act for income earned from activities like providing food, liquor, and games. The Tribunal's decision was based on precedent from the assessee's previous cases, where the Revenue did not file appeals. The High Court found no evidence of the Tribunal's decision being contrary to the law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Alleged violation of Section 13 and Section 11(4) compliance:
The Revenue also questioned the Tribunal's decision regarding the alleged violation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act and non-compliance with Section 11(4) requirements by the Trust. However, it was noted that this question did not arise from the Tribunal's order and hence could not be entertained by the Court.
Overall, the High Court's judgment focused on the interpretation of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act and the lack of grounds to challenge the Tribunal's decision based on past precedents.
............
|
9911796707
