|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1251 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1074
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Extra Profit in Gross Profit.
2. Rejection of Books of Account u/s 145(3).
3. Estimation of Income by Applying a Flat Profit Rate.
4. Addition on Account of Closing Stock.
5. Applicability of Section 292C.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Extra Profit in Gross Profit
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made under the head extra profit addition in gross profit for various assessment years. The A.O. had made these additions based on the lack of regular books of account and stock register, estimating extra profit at 15% over the gross profit shown by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, stating that the A.O. did not point out specific defects in the books of account and that the rejection of books u/s 145(3) was not justified.
Issue 2: Rejection of Books of Account u/s 145(3)
The A.O. rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) on the grounds that they were not found during the search and were prepared post-search without supporting documents. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting that the A.O. did not find any specific defects in the books of account and that the books were audited and maintained regularly. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, emphasizing that the mere absence of a stock register does not justify the rejection of books of account.
Issue 3: Estimation of Income by Applying a Flat Profit Rate
The A.O. estimated the income by applying a flat profit rate of 15% on the gross profit shown by the assessee. The CIT(A) found this approach unjustified, as the A.O. did not consider comparable cases or the assessee's explanations for the book results. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the A.O.'s estimation lacked a reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.
Issue 4: Addition on Account of Closing Stock
For A.Y. 2009-10, the A.O. made an addition of Rs. 2,08,54,333/- on account of closing stock, instead of a separate G.P. addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the A.O. relied on incorrect assumptions and did not verify the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the reconciliation was accurate and that the A.O.'s verification procedure was defective.
Issue 5: Applicability of Section 292C
The Revenue argued the applicability of section 292C, which presumes the correctness of documents found during a search. However, the Tribunal found this ground irrelevant as the A.O. did not make any additions based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully rebutted the presumption under section 292C with various evidences and explanations.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the CIT(A)'s orders and rejecting the A.O.'s grounds for additions and rejection of books of account.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1073
Entitlement of interim order - pre-deposit - Held that: - the amount was deposited within time or after delay of one or two days. That would not be so fatal to cancel the contract of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the interim order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1072
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- No question of law arises. The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1071
Issues Involved: Stay petition, Disallowance of commission payments, Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C.
Stay Petition:
The assessee filed a stay petition seeking relief from an outstanding demand of Rs. 13,52,063. The petition was dismissed as the appeal had already been heard and disposed of.
Disallowance of Commission Payments:
The appeal challenged the disallowance of commission payments made to M/s Misc. Maldives Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Hussain Shiham, asserting they did not constitute technical services under sec. 9(1)(vii) and sec. 9(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. The AO disallowed the payments for failure to deduct tax at source under sec. 40a(i), adding Rs. 29,19,389 to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, deeming the services as technical. The assessee argued that the payments were for business income, not technical services, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the services did not qualify as technical under sec. 9(1)(vii).
Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C:
Consequential to the above issues, the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C was addressed. The AO was directed to provide relief in this regard.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1070
Applicability exemption u/s 11 - can depreciation be claimed as application of income - Held that the assessee is eligible for exemption and cannot be assessed as an AOP - when different views are available then views favourable to the assessee should be adopted - the claim of depreciation on fixed assets utilized for the charitable purpose has to allowed while arriving at the income available for application to charitable and religious purposes since the income of the assessee should be computed on the basis of commercial principle - [ DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 2012 (4) TMI 289 (Del.)] - Decided in favor of assesse
-
2012 (12) TMI 1069
Issues Involved:
1. Cross-appeals against original assessment for AY 2000-01.
2. Assessee's appeal against the order u/s 263 for AY 2000-01.
3. Assessee's appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 263 for AY 2000-01.
4. Cross-appeals arising out of block assessment for AYs 1989-90 to 1999-2000.
5. Assessee's appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05.
Summary:
1. Cross-appeals against original assessment for AY 2000-01:
The effective grievance of the assessee in ITA No.543/Hyd/2006 is the non-grant of deduction on account of self-supervision while determining the cost of construction. The Revenue's grievance in ITA No.641/Hyd/2006 is against the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding the cost of construction adopted by the assessing officer to arrive at the unexplained investment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in brushing aside the report of the DVO without assigning any reason. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to redetermine the cost of construction by giving a discount of 15% on account of rate difference and a further discount of 10% on account of self-supervision. Both appeals are partly allowed.
2. Assessee's appeal against the order u/s 263 for AY 2000-01:
The Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the original assessment order and directed the assessing officer to make necessary inquiries regarding the agricultural income of Rs. 11 lakhs claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the agricultural income declared by the assessee was consistent with the income declared for other years and was accepted by the Revenue authorities. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking the provisions of S.263 of the Act and cancelled the order. The assessee's appeal ITA No.526A/Hyd/2005 is allowed.
3. Assessee's appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 263 for AY 2000-01:
Since the order of the Commissioner passed u/s 263 was cancelled, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said order no longer survive. The appeal ITA No.508/Hyd/2007 is dismissed as infructuous.
4. Cross-appeals arising out of block assessment for AYs 1989-90 to 1999-2000:
- Assessee's Appeal (ITA No.44/Hyd/2009): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 9,36,500 made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment and the addition of Rs. 22 lakhs as unexplained credits in the bank account. The appeal is dismissed.
- Revenue's Appeal (ITA No.45/Hyd/2009): The Tribunal found that the seized material was a mere loose slip of paper without any corroborative evidence and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 82.01 lakhs. The appeal is dismissed.
5. Assessee's appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05:
- AY 2003-04 (ITA No.226/Hyd/2007): The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of agricultural land should be treated as agricultural income and not as business income. The disallowance of commission of Rs. 61,17,740 is rendered academic. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of agricultural income and rejected the ground regarding clubbing of income of the assessee's wife. The appeal is partly allowed.
- AY 2004-05 (ITA No.1407/Hyd/2010): The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 was not valid as the income from the sale of agricultural land was exempt. The assessment made u/s 144 read with S.148 is cancelled. The appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th October 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1068
Issues involved: Whether depreciation amount can be treated as application of income u/s 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Kozhikode for the assessment year 2007-08. The only issue raised in the appeal is the treatment of depreciation amount of Rs. 54.38 lakhs as application of income under sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee, a charitable institution, claimed depreciation as application of funds, but the Assessing Officer considered it as double deduction since the cost of assets was already claimed as application of funds. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal before the ITAT.
During the proceedings, the assessee relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and various other High Court judgments to support the claim that charitable societies are entitled to claim depreciation. However, both parties agreed that a subsequent decision by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Kerala High Court in another case had ruled against the assessee's claim. The High Court held that claiming depreciation on assets whose cost was already claimed as application of income would result in double deduction, citing a Supreme Court decision. The ITAT, bound by the later High Court decision, upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
The High Court in the referenced case allowed the write back of depreciation for the assessee. The assessee requested similar relief from the ITAT, but the ITAT expressed doubts about its authority to grant such relief. The ITAT noted that the power to modify provisions lies with the High Court, not the Tribunal. Therefore, the ITAT declined to provide the requested relief and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal, citing the binding nature of the later High Court decision and the limitations of the Tribunal's authority under the provisions of the Act. The decision was pronounced on 07-12-2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1067
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 for granting interest u/s 244A till the date of issue of refund.
Summary:
1. Issue of Granting Interest u/s 244A: The A.O. did not credit the amount of &8377; 1,30,00,000/- while working out the refund due to the assessee. Upon application u/s 154, the A.O. allowed the credit of this amount after verification with banking authorities. However, interest u/s 244A on this refund till the date of refund was not granted. Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to grant interest u/s 244A on the refund issued till the date of the refund order. The ITAT upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
2. Cross Objection: The assessee's cross objection in support of ld. CIT(A)'s order became infructuous due to the decision in the Revenue's appeal and was consequently dismissed as infructuous.
3. Final Decision: The ITAT dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection, upholding the direction to grant interest u/s 244A till the date of the refund order.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1066
Issues involved: Challenge to the confirmation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act
The assessee challenged the disallowance of &8377; 2,71,690 made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Rule 8D and disallowed the amount based on the total investment made by the assessee. The AO concluded that the disallowance under sec. 14A encompasses not only indirect income but also indirect expenditure related to exempt income. The AO did not make any noting regarding the correctness of the account, and the assessee claimed no loan was taken nor any interest was paid. The AO disallowed the amount without considering these aspects. The Tribunal found that the principle of apportionment u/s 14A does not apply when no expenditure is claimed to have been incurred in relation to exempt income. The expenses incurred to earn exempt income cannot be allowed, and expenses should only be allowed to the extent they are related to earning taxable income. The AO must determine the amount disallowable as per Rule 8D if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee regarding expenditure in relation to exempt income. The Tribunal, after considering the balance-sheet and profit & loss account of the assessee, found merit in the submission of the assessee and allowed the appeal.
Decision: The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
This order was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of the learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 11th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1065
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of TDS claim of Rs. 35,87,265 u/s. 154 for A.Y. 2007-08.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the TDS claim of Rs. 35,87,265 without considering the explanation provided. The Assessing Officer observed that the TDS was deducted under a different name, leading to the rejection of the claim. The assessee contended that the entire transaction was reflected in their accounts for the relevant year. The CIT(A) dismissed the claim stating that the TDS certificate was not in the name of the assessee. The assessee also challenged the order u/s. 154 as debatable. The AR argued for the credit of TDS based on the joint venture agreement and submitted an affidavit supporting their claim. The AR relied on a Tribunal order in a similar case favoring the assessee.
The DR argued that the JV is a separate entity and TDS should not be credited to the constituents. The Tribunal noted previous decisions on similar issues and emphasized the need for the assessee to offer income for taxation to claim TDS credit. Referring to the Tribunal's decision in another case, the issue was deemed debatable, and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify if income was offered for taxation before granting TDS credit. The Tribunal annulled the Assessing Officer's order, allowing the assessee's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found the issue debatable and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if income was offered for taxation before granting TDS credit, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal against the rejection of the TDS claim.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1064
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act.
2. Completion of the project within the specified time.
3. Commercial area limits within the project.
Summary:
1. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act:
The assessee HUF, engaged in the business of builders and developers, claimed a deduction of Rs. 76,94,360 u/s 80IB(10) for the project Shiv Amrut Dham. The AO disallowed the claim, arguing that the entire project was not completed within the specified time and included commercial areas exceeding the permissible limits. The CIT (A) allowed the deduction, stating that the project met all conditions under section 80IB(10), including the commencement and completion dates, land area, residential unit size, and commercial area limits.
2. Completion of the Project within the Specified Time:
The AO contended that the project was incomplete as it was part of a larger project of 14 buildings, and only six buildings were completed by the assessee. The CIT (A) and ITAT found that the assessee's project was distinct and independently developed, with completion certificates obtained within the prescribed time. The ITAT referenced the case of Vidhi Builders, where a similar project was deemed complete based on separate approvals and completion certificates.
3. Commercial Area Limits within the Project:
The AO argued that the commercial area in the entire project exceeded the permissible limit of 2000 sq. ft. However, the CIT (A) and ITAT concluded that the commercial area within the assessee's six buildings was less than 2000 sq. ft., complying with section 80IB(10). The ITAT emphasized that the assessee's project should be considered independently from the other developers' projects on the same land.
Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that the assessee's project met all the conditions for the deduction, including timely completion and adherence to commercial area limits. The judgment emphasized a liberal interpretation of section 80IB(10) in favor of the assessee, aligning with the legislative intent and previous judicial precedents.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1063
Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to deletion of addition of expenditure made u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and restricting the disallowance on account of purchase of material.
Deletion of Addition of Expenditure u/s 40A(3): The Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of &8377; 26,61,084 by the learned CIT(A) under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that necessary details for the claim of such expenditure were not furnished by the assessee. However, the learned CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal found that the payments were made to government departments, falling under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b). It was concluded that the necessary details were indeed filed by the assessee, and the addition was deleted based on this finding.
Restriction of Disallowance on Purchase of Material: The Revenue objected to the learned CIT(A) restricting the disallowance on account of purchase of material to 3%, as opposed to the 15% estimated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer doubted purchases from four parties, alleging inflated consumption of material. However, the learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee's gross profit ratio was increasing, and overall material consumption had decreased. It was observed that the disallowance was made on an ad-hoc basis without concrete evidence. The learned CIT(A) considered the past history of the assessee and restricted the disallowance to 3%, which was further increased to 6% by the Appellate Tribunal to settle the matter. The decision was based on estimation and the specific circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the deletion of the addition of expenditure u/s 40A(3) and modifying the disallowance on purchase of material to 6%. The judgment was pronounced on 7th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1062
Denial of exemption under s. 11 on the ground that same should have been claimed exempt under s. 10(23C) - Held that:- When the law permits the assessee to claim exemption under s. 10(23C) or s. 11, the choice should be left to the assessee and the Department cannot force the assessee to adopt only a particular provision. Since in the instant case the assessee has been granted registration under s. 12A which has not been cancelled and is still in force for the impugned assessment year and since the assessee was granted the benefit of exemption under s. 11 in the past years under scrutiny assessments and no objection was raised by the Revenue for such exemption under s. 11, therefore following rule of consistency the learned CIT(A) should have allowed exemption under s. 11 and the learned CIT(A) in our opinion is not justified in holding that the assessee should have claimed exemption under s. 10(23C). The various decisions relied on by the learned CIT(A), in our opinion, are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the assessee can claim exemption under s. 11 if it fulfils the other conditions prescribed under the said section. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
Considering the fact that the Revenue had no objection in the past for holding the shares of the bank during the tenure of loan utilised by the assessee trust and considering the fact that the assessee trust is still enjoying overdraft facilities from the bank we are of the considered opinion that there is no violation of provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(l)(d) on account of holding the shares of the bank. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed.
Donations received through issue of coupons as revenue receipts - Held that:- Since in the preceding paras we have held that there is no violation of provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(l)(d) and since the donations are treated as revenue receipts therefore it does not make any difference. We, therefore, hold that exemption under s. 11 is allowable on such coupon donations. The grounds by the assessee are decided accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1061
Waiver and stay of proceedings - CENVAT credit - relevant invoices were not issued to the insurance company but to the vehicle owners - Held that: - the stay orders produced by the learned consultant for the appellant found to have presented a precedent to be followed - waiver and stay granted.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1060
Transfer pricing adjustment on account of provisions of technical services - selection of comparables - Held that:- Assessee received income on account of application research and technical services from its parent company, which are international transactions as defined u/s 92B, thus companies dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Exclusion of the comparables due to high profit margin or loss, we find that the action of the TPO excluding the two comparables on the ground that these companies are persistent loss making concluded merely on the basis of two years data and without going into the details whether the loss is because of factors as prescribed under Rule 10B(2) r.w. sub rule (3) is not justified.
Disallowance in respect of global support service charges - Held that:- There is no dispute that the agreement between the parties was entered into during the year relevant to assessment under consideration and the debit note in respect of the expenses was also received during the year under consideration therefore, the expenditure has been crystallised during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by considering both the AYs . Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A),
-
2012 (12) TMI 1059
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are disallowance of commission expenses paid to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax, admission of additional evidence by the assessee under Rule 46A before ld. CIT(A), and the applicability of TDS provisions u/s 194H on commission payments made by the assessee.
Disallowance of commission expenses paid to HUF u/s 40(a)(ia):
The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission expenses paid to the HUF, stating that the HUF could not perform services for earning commission as it involved rendering of actual services. Additionally, a disallowance of &8377; 19,11,317/- u/s 40(a)(ia) was made for non-deduction of tax. The ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and after considering submissions, deleted the addition. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the HUF is a separate legal entity capable of conducting business through its Karta and other members, and as services rendered by an individual were accepted, there was no reason to reject services rendered by the Karta of the HUF.
Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A:
The assessee filed an application under Rule 46A before ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence related to commission payments to the HUF. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the submissions to the AO for comments, and after considering the remand report, admitted the additional evidence as the AO did not object to its admission. The assessee argued that TDS on commission expenses was not applicable as the commission was paid in respect of sale and purchase of mutual funds to sub-brokers, which are considered securities under the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956.
Applicability of TDS provisions u/s 194H:
The Department contended that the assessee did not deduct TDS on commission expenses paid, leading to an appeal. The Department's appeal was based on the argument that TDS should have been deducted on the entire commission amount, questioning the breakdown of commission paid relating to securities and other transactions. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 194H and the definition of commission or brokerage, concluding that commission paid in connection with securities, such as mutual funds, falls outside the purview of section 194H. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, as the commission paid by the assessee related to securities and was not subject to TDS requirements.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1058
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of revisional authority u/s VAT laws, withdrawal of appeal by petitioner, challenge to power of revisional authority, statutory remedies available to petitioner.
Jurisdiction of revisional authority u/s VAT laws: The petitioner challenged a revisional notice issued by the Commissioner VAT, raising concerns about the Commissioner's power. The Court referred to a Full Bench decision confirming the Commissioner's authority. The revisional authority rejected the petitioner's contentions and made an order on merits, prompting the petitioner to approach the VAT Tribunal while a writ petition was pending. The Court held that the petitioner should exhaust other statutory remedies before challenging the revisional authority's power.
Withdrawal of appeal by petitioner: Despite withdrawing the appeal, the Court emphasized that this action does not compel it to entertain an amendment application to examine the merits of the revisional authorities, especially when statutory remedies are available. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal within a month either with a fresh appeal or an application for revival of the withdrawn appeals.
Challenge to power of revisional authority: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's interim order staying the demands following the revisional order. It ruled that the interim order should continue until the appeal is filed. The Tribunal was instructed to consider any application for an interim order in accordance with the law and dispose of it promptly.
Statutory remedies available to petitioner: The Court highlighted that the petitioner must exhaust all statutory remedies before challenging the revisional authority's power. It clarified that the order does not express any opinion on the merits of the appeal or the interim order related to the revisional order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1057
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of net loss from derivative transactions as business loss or capital loss.
2. Application of the Treaty between India and Australia by the Assessing Officer.
3. Set-off of net business loss from derivative transactions against capital gains from the sale of shares u/s 71 of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Classification of Net Loss from Derivative Transactions
The primary issue was whether the net loss of Rs. 41,42,03,363/- from derivative transactions should be treated as business loss or capital loss. The assessee, a sub-account of an FII, argued that the loss should be considered as capital loss since the transactions were investments. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the loss as business loss, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, referencing the decision in LG Asian Plus Ltd. Vs ADIT, concluded that income from derivative transactions for FIIs should be treated as capital gains or losses, not business income or losses. Thus, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the income from derivative transactions should be classified as capital gains or losses.
Issue 2: Application of the Treaty Between India and Australia
The assessee contended that the AO wrongly applied the provisions of the Treaty between India and Australia, which put the assessee at a disadvantage. The Tribunal, having decided the primary issue in favor of the assessee, did not delve into this alternative plea.
Issue 3: Set-off of Net Business Loss from Derivative Transactions
The assessee argued that if the loss from derivative transactions were treated as business loss, it should be set off against capital gains from the sale of shares u/s 71 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had treated both the profit and loss from derivative transactions as business profit and loss, respectively, and allowed the set-off. However, since the Tribunal decided that the loss should be treated as capital loss, this issue became redundant.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, with the Tribunal holding that the income from derivative transactions should be treated as capital gains or losses, not business income or losses. The Tribunal did not address the alternative plea regarding the application of the Treaty due to the primary issue being resolved in favor of the assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1056
Claim of deduction u/s 80IB (10) - Held that:- This issue is remitted back to the file of the AO with a specific direction to look into the merits of the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 80IB (10) of the Act afresh:
(i) Whether the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause, as attributed by it in its affidavits (above), in furnishing its return of income belatedly? &
(ii) Whether the assessee has satisfied the other conditions stipulated in s. 80-IB of the Act to determine the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1055
Issues involved: Modification application for deposit, challenge to stay order, jurisdiction of Tribunal to pass orders post Supreme Court decision.
Modification application for deposit: The appellant sought to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs in installments, but the Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had already extended the time for deposit, making the amount due within the extended period. The appellant's challenge to this order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed, merging the Tribunal's order with the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court granted one week for compliance with the Tribunal's interim order.
Challenge to stay order: The appellant's challenge to the stay order passed by the Tribunal led to proceedings in the Hon'ble High Court and subsequently in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) resulted in the Tribunal's order being merged with the Supreme Court's decision, requiring compliance within a specified timeframe.
Jurisdiction of Tribunal post Supreme Court decision: The Tribunal, being a subordinate court, acknowledged its lack of power to pass any further orders post the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant, emphasizing the need to adhere to the direction of the Apex Court. A notice was issued to the appellant to show cause for potential dismissal of their appeal due to failure to comply with the Supreme Court's directive. The appellant was given the opportunity to present a defense against the show cause notice either in person or through an authorized representative.
............
|
9911796707
