|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 697 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 704 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... for promoting the sales of goods or services or towards celebrity endorsement but the payments were made towards expenditure on advertisement being in the nature of expenses covered by sub-clause (i) and (v) of clause (D) of sec. 115WB(2) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement by making ad-film employing Mr. Kapil Dev etc. would not come under the purview of sales promotion including publicity as they are covered by the exclusive clauses (i) and (v) of the proviso to clause (D) of sec. 115WB(2) of the Act for the purpose of determining the fringe benefit deemed to have been provided by the assessee. We, therefore, delete the amount of ₹ 15,15,526/- being 20 of expenses of ₹ 75,77,632/- from the value of fringe benefit, and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 25th November, 2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 703 - ITAT KOLKATA
TDS u/s 194C - disallowance of freight charges u/s. 40(a)(ia) - non-deduction of TDS where the freight charges includes Octroi tax paid to Maharastra Government by the transporters and reimbursed by the assessee - Held that:- The issue of reimbursement of customs duty charges and other charges which are incurred by agents on behalf of assessee cannot be subject matter of TDS. See Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Grandprix Fab. (P.) Ltd. [2009 (10) TMI 659 - ITAT DELHI]
Disallowance of business promotion expenses, Coolie & Cartage expenses and general expenses respectively - Held that:- We find that in absence of proper evidence Assessing Officer made estimated disallowances on account of business promotion expenses, coolie and cartage expenses and general expenses. In appeal, CIT(A) gave part relief on account of business promotion expenses i.e. 20% of the expenses amounting to ₹ 12,327/- i.e. sustained the disallowance of ₹ 6,000/-, sustained the disallowance of ₹ 8,388/- out of coolie and cartage expenses and sustained the disallowance as made by Assessing Officer in respect of general expenses i.e. ₹ 2,918/-. Since lower authorities have made the disallowances in absence of proper evidence, we find no need to interfere with the same and the same is hereby upheld. These grounds of assessee’s appeal are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 702 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy, is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and there could be contingencies in which the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Going by the abovesaid decision of the apex court, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order, however, remanding the matter back to the first respondent. Accordingly, the order dated April 29, 2011 of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on the liability relating to sale of white sugar manufactured in India from out of the imported raw sugar. The petitioner is directed to place such further materials apart from what had been already placed in support of its contention that raw sugar and refined sugar are two different commodities. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, M. P. No. 1 of 20011 is closed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 701 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
NP determination - Held that:- Net profit rate of 1.08% was applied by the Tribunal (supra). There is requirement to apply suitable net profit rate in order to determine the income for the year. The net profit rate of 1.08% has been accepted in Assessment Year 2005-06 where the assessee was maintaining its books of account in due course. The assessee had declared NP ratio of 1.20% during the year. The basis for computing the income for the year under consideration by the Assessing Officer was the net profit rate applied in assessment year 2005-06. The said basis has been modified by the order of the Tribunal under which net profit rate declared by the assessee at 1.08% has been accepted. Following the parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the net profit rate @ 1.2% to the gross receipts as declared by the assessee. In view thereof we reverse the order of the CIT (A) and allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
-
2011 (11) TMI 700 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d opinion that this matter needs to be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer /TPO with a direction that he will give a clear finding regarding (i) why the ‘CUP’ method is not appropriate method in the given case? (ii) How TNMM method is preferable to the ‘CUP’ method ? (iii) He has to elaborately give reasons with data as to why he is adopting TNMM method and after adopting the same what are the exact adjustments to be carried out, if any in this case ? (iv) Whether the assessee is entitled to benefit of Sec.92C(2) of the Act or not ? The assessee will be at liberty to plead its case in the manner it likes, if so advised. The Assessing Officer/TPO has to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. 20. In result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. The stay petition becomes infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 699 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r, there is no minimum prescribed under said section. This however, does not mean that penalty can be imposed without proper reason at the rate that Assessing officer may impose. In the present case, as already noted against the principal tax of ₹ 58.87 lakhs, Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 30 lakhs. No reasons were indicated for imposing such penalty. On the other hand Tribunal reduced the penalty by providing that rate should be at the rate of 15 per annum from the date of default till actual payment for every month or part thereof. Counsel for the Revenue was justified in pointing out that such formula incorporating previsions of Section 215, 216 or 217 into penalty proceedings under Section 221 would not be ordinarily justified. However, we are of the view that order of Tribunal is one quantifying the penalty relating to length of default. In thus discretionary exercise of powers by Tribunal, we see no question of law arising. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 698 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee at its option can furnish the declaration under section 158A(1) of the Act, that where the issues are identical the decision in the appeals pending before the Hon'ble High Court or the Supreme Court shall apply to the issues raised in the captioned assessment years. The said declaration was furnished by the assessee in Form No.8. The Assessing Officer vide his report dated 1/2.09.2011 has admitted that the question of law raised in assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court were identical to the issues raised in assessment year 2005-06. Consequently, we direct the Assessing Officer to apply the ratio settled by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 to the issues raised in the present appeal on the receipt of the said judgment. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 697 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... asstt.year 2007-08. It has been held by the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata, in number of cases, that 1 of exempted income may be treated as expenditure incurred in relation to earning of exempted income. 9.2. Aggrieved by this the revenue is in appeal before us. 10. The ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the orders of AO. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of assessee relied on the orders of ld. CIT(A). 11. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record it is observed that by sustaining the disallowance u/s 14A at 1 of the dividend income ld. CIT(A) has followed this Tribunal’s decision. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the orders of ld. CIT(A) to be interfered with. Hence we dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 12. In the result ground no.2 of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 696 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nal were subject matter of appeals before the Hon'ble High Court. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 5. In the learned authorised representative submitted that other than the decision of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. reported in 325 ITR 102 had also decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue in the appeal is now squarely covered by the decision of the Third Member in the case of Navin Bharat Industries Ltd., referred to supra, as also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., referred to supra, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 7. The order was pronounced in the court on 18/11/2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 694 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... 0/- and also levied penalty despite the fact that these details were available before the assessing authorities. We find that these expenses would have been incurred by AE (Associated Enterprise) irrespective of the fact whether such services have been rendered or not and accordingly, it cannot be said that such expenses forms part of normal cost for the purpose of computation or adjustment to transfer pricing transactions under cost plus mark up. Even otherwise this is a highly debatable issue and facts were available before the lower authorities, as we have carried out discussion on the above issue of warranty provision of expenses, in similar circumstances, the penalty on this issue cannot be sustained. In view of the above discussion and case laws of Hon’ble Apex Court as relied upon, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by AO on both the issues. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in open court on 04.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 693 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Incorrect valuation of stock - Held that:- Revenue Department not only in past but in subsequent years also accepted the claim of the assessee. This stand of the AO would demolish all arguments of the learned DR. The findings of the learned CIT(A) on correct method of valuation adopted by the assessee have not been rebutted through any evidence on record. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record rightly followed the various orders of the Tribunal including the orders of jurisdictional ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in arriving at the just decision in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Considering the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue.
-
2011 (11) TMI 692 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rrectly noted by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had duly explained the credit entries in the account; that however, the AO had not considered the explanation offered by the assessee; and that more-over, these accounts had been declared in the returns filed by the assessee over the years. 52. In this regard, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the entries in Bank Account No. 9994, maintained by the assessee along with her husband, Shri Suresh Monga. Besides, it has also been taken into account, that all the accounts maintained by the assessee were declared in the return filed by the assessee over the years. 53. In these facts, we do not find any error in the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,05,986/-. Accordingly, ground No.7 is rejected. 54. In the result, ITA No. 389(Del)2005 filed by the Department is partly allowed, whereas C.O. No. 160(Del)2008 is dismissed for limitation. Order pronounced in the open court on 8.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 691 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... et-aside the issue and restored the same back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Therefore, in our view, the case made out by the assessing Officer that the order dated 24.4.2007 is saved because of the extended limitation provided under section 153(3) is misplaced on facts in the instant case. 9. On the contra, it is section 153(2A) of the Act, which would come into operation as a result of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.9.2003 with regard to the issue of the addition of ₹ 3,58,024/- and therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer dated 24.4.2007 passed in pursuance to section 254 of the Act is barred by limitation having regard to the explicit provisions of section 153(2A) of the Act. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the additional Ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the captioned proceedings are allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on the 29th Day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 690 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... /2007especially following the judicial hierarchy, I delete the addition made by the AO on account of depreciation on buildings.” 3. The aforesaid decision of the CIT(A) has been opposed by the Revenue before us. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. After hearing the learned DR and perusing the material on record, we find that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110) wherein it has been held that depreciation is allowable on the assets, the cost of which was fully allowed as application of income in the past years. The CIT(A) has also followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking (supra). In the circumstances therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The same is upheld. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open on 30th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 689 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... commercial user in a project for the purposes of availing s. 80-IB(10) deduction and that has been done by inserting cl.(d) to s. 80-IB(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that a project with residential and commercial user to the extent permitted under DC Rules would be a housing project and hence eligible for deduction under s. 80-IB(10) up to 31st March, 2005 cannot be faulted.” 5. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee’s project is approved prior to 1.4.2005 hence the amendment to Sec.80IB(10) by the Finance Act, 2004 putting the restriction on the built-up are in the housing project will not be applicable and as rightly held by the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10). We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and same is confirmed. 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 18th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 688 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Allowable business expenditure - revenue expenses or capital nature expenses - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (11) TMI 687 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the export turnover is a component of total turnover, such an interpretation would run counter to the legislative intent and impermissible. If that were the intention of the legislature, they would have expressly stated so. If they have not chosen to expressly define what the total turnover means, then, when the total turnover includes export turnover, the meaning assigned by the legislature to the export turnover is to be respected and given effect to, while interpreting the total turnover which is inclusive of the export turnover. Therefore the formula for computation of the deduction under Section 10A, would be as under Profits of the business of the undertaking Ã- Export turnover Export turnover domestic turnover) Total turn over 3. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2011 (11) TMI 686 - ITAT JAIPUR
Revision u/s 263 - provision for development expenses - Held that:- Liability is allowable if it has arisen in the gees though it may be qualified and discharged at a future date. CIT was not justified in setting aside the order u/s 263
-
2011 (11) TMI 685 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 10.09.2007 two days prior to the search. However, this evidence had not surfaced for a long time till the completion of the assessment on 29.12.2009. In fact, if the explanation is true, the same should have been placed before the authorized officers at the time of seizure of the cash on 12.09.2007. The explanation that one of the laptops contained the books of aforesaid MGF has also not been supported in any manner except making the aforesaid statement. Thus, there are valid reasons to hold that the entries in the books of MGF Developments Ltd. are in the nature of afterthought, made with a view to explain the cash seized in the case of the assessee. In such a situation, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee failed to discharge the primary burden regarding nature and source of the cash found in his possession. Therefore, we do not find any such error in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) which requires correction from us. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 684 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 194C and accordingly Section 40(A)(ia) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is attracted? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting addition of ₹ 37,44,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of bonus paid to the Directors in terms of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?’‘
............
|
