|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 848 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 972 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... es incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in s.11 and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under s.11(1)(a) -CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1994) 119 CTR (Guj) 144 (1995) 211 ITR 293 (Guj) concurred with.” Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 & 2 of Revenue are rejected.” Respectfully following above decision, we reject the ground raised by the Revenue, As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 22. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 6/5/11.
-
2011 (5) TMI 971 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... itled to dividend if on the record date the assessee was holding the shares in its name. Moreover, the assessee has also made long term investments in shares and mutual funds units from which it must have received dividend. In our view on the facts of the case, the transactions declared as short term purchases and sales have to be considered as business activity. However, the units of mutual funds are not generally a trading instrument because of comparatively low fluctuation and number of transactions in units are also not large. Therefore in our view the purchase and sale of units has to be considered as investment activity. Even the CIT(A) has treated the sale and purchase of only shares as trading activities. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances we confirm the order of CIT(A) holding the purchases and sales of shares as business activity. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 25 .05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 970 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ction Tax ₹ 427.50 Bill No.M18804/118043 Sett. No.2004188 Bill date 21.12.2004 Security Name Seagul Quantity 77000 Amount per share ₹ 29.06 Total amount ₹ 23,37,960/- Securities Transaction Tax ₹ 1679.37 Bill No.M18904/118044 Sett. No.2004189 Bill date 21.12.2004 Security Name Seagul Quantity 69600 Amount per share ₹ 29.05 Total amount ₹ 20,21,908/- Securities Transaction Tax ₹ 1517.45 We have deducted ₹ 3,624.32 as a Securities Transaction Tax from above transactions as per law.” 10. For the reasons mentioned by us in the case of Ritaben B Panwala above, we hold that both the conditions laid down in Sub-Section (1) of Section 111A are satisfied and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for being assessed at concessional rates as provided u/s 111A of the Act. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 969 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... allowance of bonus u/s 43B amounting to ₹ 71,802/-, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire bonus was paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration. According to him, no disallowance on account of the said bonus, therefore, was called for u/s 43B as held by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pik Pen Private Limited vs. ITO rendered vide its order dated 28-10-2010 passed in ITA No. 6847/Mum/2008 relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the disallowance made on account of bonus u/s 43B after verifying that the said bonus was paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return of income for the year under consideration 16. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 968 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of over 1 year and 11 months - service of notice - Held that: - The assessees had not intimated any change of address to the O/o Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - In these circumstances, the submission of the assessees that they actually received the impugned order on 21.01.2011 when the recovery action was initiated, is not sufficient to hold that there is no delay in preferring of the above appeal.
No satisfactory explanation has been given by the assessees for the delay - delay cannot be condoned - appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
-
2011 (5) TMI 967 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... was stated to be the shifting of assessee’s premises at the material time and in such shifting the evidence was misplaced. In our considered opinion it would be just and fair if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of A.O. In the fresh proceedings the Assessing Officer will consider the deductibility or otherwise of the said sum of ₹ 79.91 lakhs under the mercantile system of accounting after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In other words, if the expenditure incurred pertains to the year in question then the deduction should be allowed notwithstanding the fact that the bills have been raised in this or in the next year and vice versa. Needless to say the assessee will be at liberty to file any other evidence in support of this deduction. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , stands allowed with a token cost which is quantified at rupees twenty five thousand as we are of the view that the appellant who was in actual physical and peaceful possession of her property which she had inherited from her deceased parents, was unnecessarily dragged into this litigation at the instance of the plaintiff-Kuppuswami who filed a partition suit which was apparently collusive in nature as it included the share of a third party to which the plaintiff and 1st defendant's family had no clear title. Under the facts and circumstance of the instant case, it was clearly a compulsion on the part of the appellant/Tmt. Rangammal to contest the collusive suit for decades Kwasting time, energy and expense over a litigation which was started by the plaintiff clearly with an oblique motive and evil design. Hence the cost shall be paid by the respondent No.1-Kuppuswami to the appellant- Rangammal as indicated above. 34. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed with costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 965 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... f appeal raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed. 6. As far as the issue pertaining to foreign exchange gain amounting to ₹ 6,98,838/- is concerned, we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid decision of the tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra, wherein it has been held as under “Ground no.2 pertains to claim of deduction in respect of foreign exchange gain. This issue has also been decided in above paragraphs by citing the decision of Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd. (2007) 112 TTJ (Bang) 562 in favour of the assessee. This ground is allowed.” Facts being similar, so respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the exemption u/s 10B in respect of foreign exchange gain of ₹ 6,98,838/-. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13th Day of May 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 964 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts and, therefore, are not income within the meaning of s. 2(24).” 10. In view of the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Jaya Bhaskaran (supra), taking into consideration of the facts of the present case, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in holding that the amount in question received by assessee cannot be charged to tax as the same are in capital receipt. 3. Since in the years under consideration, the issue is materially identical to that of AY 2005-06, we respectfully follow the decision of ITAT in that year and in the light of that we confirm the order of the CIT(A) in treating the amount received by assessee as capital receipt. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in all the years under consideration are dismissed. 4. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 963 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... istration of justice by the Tribunal. Seeking adjournment on false ground is clearly a contemptuous act on the part of any litigant. Indeed, law in this regard is well settled by a number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as decisions of the Bombay High Court. It is apparently, therefore, a fit case for reference to the High Court for necessary contempt proceedings against the appellants. However, before making any decision in that regard, opportunity is given to the appellants to show cause against such reference. The appellants therefore, to submit explanation in this regard within a period of 15 days. The notice in this regard is received on behalf of the appellants by Shri Kiran Sawale for the appellants. Apart from that, written notice in this regard is issued by the Registry to the appellants. Notice is returnable on 16-6-2011. Meanwhile, accepting the submission by Shri A.P. Kolte, his stand is discharged from this matter. (Dictated & pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (5) TMI 962 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ion, we find that the Assessing Officer not only wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 80IA(10) but also erred in interpreting the Partnership Deed so as to hold the assessee liable for reducing its profits on account of remuneration and interest to the partners for the purposes of Section 80IC of the Act. The order of the CIT(Appeals), on this ground is hereby affirmed. Thus, the Revenue fails on Ground No. 1 and 2. 5. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts before Tribunal in M/s Navakar Polyplast Company v ITO (supra) and ITO Vs M/s A.K. Impex (ITA No. 766/Chandi/2008). Following the ratio laid down by Tribunal in ITO Vs M/s A.K. Impex (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 13th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 961 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
|
Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases and Unexplained Payments - AO disallowed the purchase made to some parties as bogus purchases and also made the addition for payment made to those parties as unexplained payment - CIT(A) disallowed 30% of the total addition
HELD THAT:- First we shall consider the addition made by the AO as unexplained payment, we find that the AO in this case has made a thorough investigation. Perusal of which clearly shows that the entire payment made by the assessee was by cheque and was debited in the assessee’s bank account, therefore, the same cannot be said to be unexplained payment. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no justification for making the addition as unexplained payment.
As far as the bogus purchase is concerned, we find that the AO recorded the detailed finding so as to establish that the purchases claimed to have been made was bogus. On these facts, the decision in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 5 BARODA. VERSUS M/S. KULUBI STEEL [2010 (12) TMI 1201 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]would be squarely applicable, wherein it was held that, Any person obtaining bogus bills of some other parties, would do so for getting some benefit. But what would be the magnitude of the benefit would depend upon facts of each case. After considering the facts we are of the opinion that it would meet ends of justice, if the disallowance is sustained at 12.5% of the purchase from these two parties."
Since the facts of the assessee’s case are identical, we respectfully following the above decision of the ITAT, direct the AO to disallow 12.5% of the purchases made during the year under consideration.
|
-
2011 (5) TMI 960 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ee and that open area is not part of balcony/verandah, therefore, according to the submission of the assessee, the built up area of the assessee was within the prescribed limit, therefore, there is no need to give further finding with regard to alternate claim of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, we are of the view the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Amaltas Associates (supra) as is contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee. We are of the view that assessee fulfilled the conditions and requirements of section 80 IB (10) of the IT Act, therefore, the claim of the assessee for deduction should not have been denied by the authorities below and direct the AO to grant deduction to the assessee u/s 80 IB (10) of the IT Act as claimed by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19-05-2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 959 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ith the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court . Department has not brought to our notice any other tangible material which may have been relied on by the AO in forming his belief about the reopening. The case clearly amounts to change of opinion. In view thereof, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this issue. 9. On merits also, ITAT in the case of Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P) Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that deduction u/s 10A falls under Chapter III and not Chapter VIA. Consequently, the provisions of Section 80AB will not be applicable and the deduction is to be calculated on stand alone basis i.e. unit-wise. In view thereof, on merits also, we see no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A), more so when in the subsequent years, the assessee’s stand has been accepted by the department itself. In view thereof, we uphold the order of CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 20th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 958 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction under section 80-IB(10) - Statements Based on Survey Operations - In the original assessment, the AO declined the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) on account of violation of the conditions as specified in the said section - Matter remitted back for allowing deduction - As per Assessee, AO did not verify the area-wise calculation and simply proceeded on the basis of declaration made during the survey proceedings
HELD THAT:- AO was required to verify the area-wise calculation done during the course of survey operation. He clearly proceeded to take the declaration made during survey proceedings as gospel truth and did not bother to verify the same. In appeal, the CIT(A) has confirmed this action of the AO, this approach, in our opinion, is a very superficial way of looking at things.
Once the CIT(A) in the original quantum proceedings specifically directed the AO that deduction u/s.80IB(10) has to be allowed “subject to verification" it is not open to the AO to proceed to adopt the calculation made during survey operation without further verification.
We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the AO with specific direction to verify the area-wise calculation of all ineligible flats and allow deduction u/s.80IB(10) on pro-rata basis in respect of flats which are found to be eligible for deduction irrespective whatever statement may have made by the assessee during the survey operation. It is only elementary that the statements made in the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A have no evidentiary value and when the assessee can demonstrate that the statement so made is at variance with actual facts, such statement cannot, by any stretch of logic, be used against the assessee.The area-wise calculation of flat size, which is basis for ascertaining eligible for deduction, needs to be verified and the Assessing officer must do so while giving effect to the order - Matter restored back
-
2011 (5) TMI 957 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng additional depreciation to the assessee on the ground that the assessee is engaged in the business of generation of electricity. It is the case of the Revenue that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a hospital alone. 3. The above contention of the Revenue is not sustainable in law, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. VTM Ltd. (319 ITR 336). In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court has held that an assessee which was a manufacturing textile unit, when set up a windmill was entitled to additional depreciation. The above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is applicable to the present case. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in granting additional depreciation in windmill business. 4. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 30th day of May, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (5) TMI 956 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... issing. The Assessing Officer has also examined the application of section 40A(2)(b) but it is immaterial whether discussion regarding that issue is mentioned in the assessment order or not. Regarding service tax liability, etc. the assessee has clearly explained the modality of accounting followed by it. The assessee has answered the queries raised during assessment proceedings, but the ld. CIT has tried to further enquire into the matter which can not be done under section 263. Section 37 was not found to be applicable by the Assessing Officer while taking a conscious decision on this issue also. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment order is not erroneous so also it cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on any of these issues. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT and restore the assessment order. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.5.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 955 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... d. The said transport subsidy would cover 75 of the expenses. The assessee during the year under consideration had received transport subsidy of ₹ 12,33,836/- as against expenditure on freight paid ₹ 23,02,756/-. After setting off of the freight subsidy received against the expenditure incurred on the same, the resultant is a loss and accordingly no adjustment is required to be made in the profits of business eligible for deduction under section 80IA/80IB of the Act. In any case, the assessee in the first round of appeal before the Tribunal had not pressed the issue of allowability of aforesaid deduction under section 80IA/80IB of the Act on the freight subsidy received and had limited the grievance against the amount to be excluded from the profits of business. We direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31st day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 954 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e displaced from their existing place - Therefore, they have to be treated as housing project - Law as it existed in the asst. yr. 2004-05 when the assessee submitted its proposal for slum rehabilitation and the permission for carrying out the development was accorded on 17th Nov., 2003 and when the assessee commenced development is to be applied.” Similarly view has been taken in the other cases cited by the assessee and no contrary decision has been brought to our notice by the Revenue. Therefore, following these decisions we hold that in the case before us since the project has been approved on 27-3-2001 and was completed on 16-1-2003 date of completion certificate 31-3-2003 , therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable. Accordingly, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB 10 . We, accordingly, direct the AO to allow deduction u/s.80IB 10 . 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 20/5/2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 953 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nge of opinion' must be treated as an in built test to check the abuse of power. Hence after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is 'tangible material' to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from the assessment. Reasons must have a link with the formation of the belief." 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that reopening is bad in law and the case relied by the CIT(A) have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 9. Since we have held that reopening is bad in law, we refrain from going into the other grounds raised by the assessee. Further, since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on reopening of the assessment, the Revenue appeal herein has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open court on 13.5.2011.
............
|
