|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1387 Records
-
2016 (2) TMI 1193
Deduction claimed u/s 54F - assessee has not filed the return of income in time and not deposited the amount in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme, 1998, within the stipulated time of furnishing the return of income - Held that:- As decided in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR JALAN. [2006 (8) TMI 126 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] Section 139 cannot mean only Section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of Section 139.
Under sub-Section (4) of Section 139, any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-Section (1) of Section 142, may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Such being the situation, it was the case of the assessee that he could fulfill the requirement u/s 54 for exemption of the capital gain from being charged to income-tax on the sale of property used for residence up to 30-3-1998, inasmuch as the return of income tax for the assessment year 1996-97, could be furnished before the expiry of one year form the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, under sub-Section (4) of Section 139. Also see COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II, CHANDIGARH VERSUS MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL [2011 (10) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1192
Reopening of assessment - formation of belief by AO that certain income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - information received from the Investigation Wing that assessee made bogus purchases - Held that:- Merely noticing such information, the Assessing Officer proceeds to record a belief that income chargeable to the aforesaid extent had escaped assessment.
Reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer do not reflect independent application of mind as to whether the information before him suggested any escapement of income. To that extent, in my view, the reasons recorded do not satisfy the requirement of section 147 of the Act in as much as they do not refer to any documents or statement, etc., which would prima-facie establish a link between the bogus nature of the impugned purchases and consequential escapement of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1191
Election and change of management of the society - New Delhi House Flat Owners’ Association - status quo of nondeclaration of the result of the elections proposed qua the Association - Held that:- This appears to be a war between two associations i.e. the ‘NDHFOA’ and the ‘AAONDHA’. The impugned order has held that ‘NDHFOA’ is a Society which is in existence. The averments contained in the suit pending before the Trial Court have also been perused. They are largely premised on the averment that ‘NDHFOA’ has been dissolved and such a dissolved Society cannot hold election and accordingly they be restrained from issuing letters/circulations i.e. for the purpose of an election.
Since this order holding ‘NDHFOA’ as non-existent has been set aside and the Appellate Court has confirmed that ‘NDHFOA’ is body which is in existence and is alive, the premise on which the suit of the plaintiff (pending before the Trial Court) is based is largely demolished. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the members of the Society (Association of Apartment Owners of New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi) are aggrieved and their grievances on several scores cannot be addressed in the absence of an elected body is also an admitted position. This cannot be disputed and has in fact not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
This Court has no hesitation in holding that a transparent election be permitted of this flat owners Association i.e. New Delhi Building Housing Association located at 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi which will be conducted under the aegis of an Observer i.e. a retired High Court Judge namely Justice P.K. Bhasin (Mobile No. 9871300032) - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1190
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2016 (2) TMI 1190. Judges were Mr. Madan B. Lokur and Mr. N.V. Ramana.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1189
Addition u/s 68 - receipt of accommodation entries from Mukesh Chokshi - Held that:- It is evident that Mahasagars Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Alliance Intermediaries Network Pvt. Ltd. were involved in providing accommodation entries, and the assessee has shown long term capital gain as assessee’s own money from undisclosed sources. The assessee has not brought anything on record to controvert the finding of the AO or the ld.CIT(A). No infirmity on the order of the AO, and the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the same. Thus, all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1188
Addition on account of the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80IA(iv) - Held that:- As referring to earlier AYs Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of the Revenue. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 85,14,513 in the Assessment Year 2008-09 and ₹ 1,05,98,781/- in the Assessment Year 2009-10 made in respect of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv). Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld in this regard.
Addition on account of the claim of the assessee for legal and professional fees - Held that:- AO ought to have appreciated that the payment to Deloitte was for consulting and seeking advice on bidding for acquisition of European cage manufacturing company since assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing bearing cages. Such consultancy was potential risk and reward attached with assessee’s business; therefore the expenditure on the same is wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. Payment to Mars Export Services was for export promotion capital goods authorization; therefore, the same is also wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. The professional fees paid to Shri Mukesh Patel and Shri Saurabh Soparkar was also for consultancy/legal services against the service rendered by them, hence the same is also wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on lump-sum basis is not tenable in the eyes of law. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,00,000/- against the total disallowance of ₹ 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of legal and professional fees of ₹ 82,58,275/-. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1187
Disallowance u/s 14A applying rule 8D - Held that:- It is admitted by ld. AO himself that the investments in JV equity and mutual funds was made by the assessee out of own capital and reserves. The disallowance is made not on consideration of assessee’s reply and merits of its contention but merely by mechanically applying rule 8D. These unambiguous observations on the part of AO clearly clinch the issue in favor of the assessee.
Without prejudice to above in AY 2011-12, assessee earned dividend of only to the extent of ₹ 1,19,645/- whereas ₹ 59,01,52,708 has been disallowed u/s 14A by mechanical application of rule. In view of above judgments even in worst circumstances and if assessee’s all explanation fail, disallowance u/s 14A can never exceed the exempt income. In AY 2011-12 also ld. AO has admitted the acquisition of JV shares and mutual funds from the same interest free own sources i.e. capital and reserves of company.
Contribution to Employees PF - payments made by the assessee within the due date prescribed for filing the return - Held that:- The issue in question is squarely covered by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of CIT V. SBBJ [2014 (5) TMI 222 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] which has been relied by ld. CIT(A). Respectfully following Hon’ble Rajasthan High court judgment this ground is dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1186
Penalty u/s 271AAA on account of undisclosed income - Assessee covered u/s 132 i.e. search conducted on the Assessee OR survey u/s 133A - Held that:- As the assessee offered the disclosed income and paid taxes. That issue on quantum reached the finality. When comes to the penalty proceedings, we find that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act when the present assessee is not covered u/s 132 i.e. search conducted on the Assessee. The assessee is covered only by survey u/s 133A of the Act as such initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 271AAA is not legally tenable so AO erred initiating action under section 271AAA of the Act. Further, on perusal of the order of the CIT (A), we find that the finding of the CIT (A) in this regard is legally right and so upheld. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference and so upheld. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1185
Addition u/s 43B - deduction for deposit of electricity duty as per the directions of the Hon'ble Odisha High Court - Claim of deduction in respect of foreign traveling expenditure of the Directors - allowable busniss expenditure - Held that:- As an interim measure, it is directed that the operation of the order dated 13.06.2014 under Annexure-1 shall remain in abeyance till the next date. Free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department for necessary communication.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1184
CENVAT Credit - input services - place of removal - the assessee had made clearances of their final products from their factory gate and receiving the services of Safe Express Pvt. Ltd. and Speedage Express Cargo Service after clearances for outward transportation through Central Excise Department under the category of courier services - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the respondent-assessee had received the courier services for speedy removal of final products to their customer after clearance from the factory. The service provider namely Safe Express Pvt. Ltd. and Speedage Express Cargo Service are registered under the category of courier services. Since the services availed from the courier agency are relating to the business activities of the respondent in terms of the definition of “Input Services”, the service tax paid on such service is eligible for Cenvat Credit.
GTA Services and Courier Services are different from each other - It is an admitted fact that the respondents had received such transportation services for speedy disposal of their final products to their customers and admittedly both Safe Express Pvt. Ltd. and Speedage Express Cargo Services are registered under the category of “Courier Service”.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1183
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- As decided in V.D. REDDY & CO VERSUS DCIT-1, CIRCLE-1 (1) VISAKHAPATNAM [2013 (5) TMI 971 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] AO has taken one of the possible views while completing the assessment of the years under consideration and has considered all aspects while completing the assessment. Accordingly, we set aside the revision orders passed by Learned CIT for both the years under consideration.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1182
Addition u/s 68 - transaction recorded on the basis of which peak credits were worked out were accepted to be belonging to Chetan Gupta - Held that:- Before making any addition u/s 68, it is necessary to prove on the part of the revenue that there is a sum found credited in the books of the assessee. The Pen Drive found from Chetan Gupta cannot be regarded to be the books maintained by the assessee. In view of sum not being found credited in the books of the assessee, it is of the view that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in this case. Book will always mean systematic recording of the financial data from which financial accounts i.e. profit & loss account and balance sheet can be made at the close of the period for which these books are maintained. Set aside the order of the CIT (A) and delete the addition made. - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1181
Reopening of assessment - addition on the basis of certain entries from the Pen Drive seized from the possession of the partner of the assessee - Held that:- Coming to the addition in assessment year 2002-03, I noted that the Tribunal has given a finding under para 6.26 in respect of the working of the peak credit by Chetan Gupta at ₹ 36,89,310/- to be correct and treated the same as undisclosed income for the assessment year 2002-03. The peak credit has been worked out as observed in this decision on the basis of the transaction recorded in the alleged Pen Drive. I, therefore, agree with the submission of ld. Senior Counsel that there cannot be any double addition. Accordingly, delete the addition thus ground no.1 in assessment year 2002-03 is allowed.
Deduction of expenditure disallowed - Held that:- AO disallowed this expenses merely on ad hoc basis by observing that as the books of accounts could not be produced the expenses cannot be verified even though he did not dispute details of various expenses as demanded by him. It is not the case that the expenses have not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. This disallowance has been made just on ad hoc basis @ 15% of the expenses incurred. The Income-tax does not permit the AO to disallow the expenditure on ad hoc basis. Accordingly, I delete this disallowance.
Disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- The provisions of section 147 empowers the AO to make the addition in respect of any other income which escaped the assessment provided addition has been made in respect of the income for which the reasons to believe were recorded. The Pen Drive has been found from Chetan Gupta during the course of search and seizure operation conducted by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau at Ludhiana pertaining to the Ludhiana City Centre scam. It is proved that the assessee was having office in Punjab. In the subsequent assessment year i.e. assessment year 2005-06, I noted that no such disallowance in respect of the depreciation was made by the AO while completing the assessment. Therefore, set aside the order of the CIT (A) on this issue and delete the disallowance of depreciation
-
2016 (2) TMI 1180
Computation of income u/s 44B - whether service tax collected by the assessee should form part of the gross receipt while computing income under section 44B / 44BB - Held that:- In the light of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “DIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd.” [2015 (10) TMI 259 - DELHI HIGH COURT] n the context of provisions contained under section 44BB, which is pari materia to section 44B and the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007–08, we hold that service tax collected by the assessee and paid to the Government account having no profit element cannot be included in the gross receipts for computation of income under section 44B of the Act. Accordingly, while confirming the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 2009–10, we set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 2010–11 by allowing assessee’s claim - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1179
Non-prosecution of appeal by the appellant assessee - none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor filed any application for adjournment of the case or intimated any reason for non-attendance. This shows that the assessee is not serious in pursuing with this appeal - the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1178
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- None appeared for the appellants nor is there any adjournment request on record despite the fact that the notice of hearing has been sent well in advance. The matter has also been coming up on record repeatedly and cannot be kept on record for unlimited period of time - appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1177
Disallowance of expenditure incurred for Pooja/function - disallowance of consultancy charges holding it as capital in nature - disallowance of charges for services - denial of claim of exclusion of interest u/s. 244A - disallowance of proportionate amount of premium on lease hold land by treating it as capital expenditure - Not allowing deduction of profit derived from Himachal Unit (located in Industrially Backward District in computing the book profit as per clause 5 to the explanation of 2nd proviso of section 115JA (MAT) - Not granting exclusion of export profit as computed under the provisions of Act in book profit for the purpose of section 115JA - adjustment of MOVDAT in the opening stock u/s. 145A
Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2016 (2) TMI 1176
The Orissa High Court dismissed the writ application as withdrawn and ordered the original documents to be returned to the petitioner's counsel after being substituted by authenticated Xerox copies. (2016 (2) TMI 1176 - Orissa High Court)
-
2016 (2) TMI 1174
Disallowance of Depreciation - appellant is a charitable institution u/s 12A - Held that:- It is well settled that in computing income of a charitable institution/trust depreciation of assets owned by such an institution is a necessary deduction on commercial principles, hence, the amount of depreciation has to be deducted to arrive at the income available. This view is substantiated by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer (2015 (3) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT). In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law
-
2016 (2) TMI 1173
Depreciation on capital assets - whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation claimed by the assessee on capital assets for which capital expenditure has already been allowed in the year under consideration? - Held that:- The issue involved in this appeal is no more res integra in view of judgment given by Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaisalmer [2015 (3) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT].
............
|
9911796707
