|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 770 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 630 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Claim of bad debt under s. 36 - Held that:- Going by the obligation of the foreman arising under ss. 21 and 22 of the Chit Funds Act to make good the default to the successful bidder on the subsequent day transaction, the claim was rightly considered by the Tribunal as one allowable under s. 36 of the Act.
-
2012 (4) TMI 629 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... invalidity of an assessment etc. on the ground of invalid issuance/service of notice in appellate proceedings. But the assessee is precluded from all the doings for and from assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument made by the ld. DR cannot help the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the notice issued by the AO u/s 148 of the Act as mentioned hereinabove is bad in law and, therefore, the assessment is directed to be quashed. Thus, ground Nos. 1(a) & 1(b) of the assessee being additional grounds are allowed. 13. As regards other grounds on merits are not considered for decision in view of our decision hereinabove. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14 In the result, the appeal the assessee in ITA No.25(Asr)/2011 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.8(Asr)/2011 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 628 - ITAT DELHI
Depreciation on on computer peripherals and accessories - Held that:- Allowing depreciation @60% on computer peripherals and accessories. See BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2012 (4) TMI 627 - ITAT DELHI
Nature of land sold - location of the property - agricultural lands - capital gains - Held that:- The land in question at the time of sale by the assessees was "agricultural land" within the meaning of Section 2 (14) (iii), therefore, it was not "capital asset" u/s 2 (14). No capital gain is chargeable on sale of such land by the assessees.
-
2012 (4) TMI 626 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Whether CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of forfeiture of shares despite the fact that the amount was a Revenue receipt which the assessee had omitted to show as an income? - HELD NO
Whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that the issue of notice u/s 148 is barred by time limit despite the fact that the Assessing Officer has issued notice within the time limit? - HELD YES - CIT(A) has not given any findings to this effect that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or in response to a notice under sub section to section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. In absence of such findings, the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation. In view of the above, we allow this ground of appeal.
-
2012 (4) TMI 625 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessee in default u/s 201(1) and that the interest u/s 201(1A) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Assesseee was not liable to deduct tax from the amount representing reimbursement of the salary paid by IDS to Dr. Sundararajan while remitting the same to IDS u/s 195 of the IT Act. The salary paid by the assessee to Dr.Sundararajan has been made the subject of tax deducted at source and the same has been remitted to the Indian Income tax authorities
-
2012 (4) TMI 624 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Deemed dividend provisions cannot be invoked in such cases because the shareholders are common.
-
2012 (4) TMI 623 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ent (para 29 of the order), relying on the decision of Jeweltex International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 31. We have perused the facts of the case and we totally agree with the observations of the CIT(A) that job work activity is a part and parcel of the business of the assessee. In the business conducted by the assessee, once a receipt gets identified and takes the character of a business activity, the provisions of section 10A shall automatically take its own course for the computation of exemption and allowance thereof. Respectfully following the findings of the Hon’ble coordinate Bench in the case of Jeweltex International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) directly on the impugned issue, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. We, therefore, dismiss the ground taken by the revenue. 32. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. In the result ITA No. 1209/Mum/2008 is partly allowed ITA No. 1615/Mum/2008 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24/04/2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 622 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ties, we find these issues should go to the files of the AO as they are dependent on the outcome of the key issues set aside above. AO is directed to pass a speaking in this regard too depending on the outcome in the set aside proceedings and also considering the plethora of judgments on the said proviso. Accordingly, the said grounds are set aside too. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed pro tanto for statistical purpose” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we restore the issue to the file of A.O for fresh adjudication in the light of the directions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 621 - ITAT DELHI
Established method of accounting - Held that:- It is apparent that project completion method is established method of accounting which the assessee has been following consistently from the preceding so many years and the same has never been disturbed by the Revenue. Under the circumstances no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same.
-
2012 (4) TMI 620 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee received the sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- from Shri N I Vyas through banking channel. In support of his claim, bank passbook of the depositor along with PAN Card and letter of confirmation from Shri Vyas are already on record. Thus, the identity and creditworthiness of the depositor is established. We further find that the sum has already been repaid by the assessee to Mr. Vyas through the banking channel in instalments in support of which necessary evidence is also on record. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction is also established. In the light of these undisputed facts of this case, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is hereby deleted
Disallowance of Telephone, Mobile, Petrol, Motor Vehicle expenses and Depreciation expenses - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% - Held that:- We feel that even 10% disallowance is on higher side keeping in view the fact that the assessee is a small retailer engaged in the business of distribution of cordless phones, etc. and, therefore, we deem it proper that the disallowance should be reduced to 5% of the total expenses
Addition pertaining to Sales Promotion, Staff Welfare and Repair Charges - Held that:- Keeping in view the fact that the assessee has incurred a small amount of ₹ 24,142/- under the head ‘Sales Promotion, Staff Welfare and Repair Charges’, and most of the expenses relates to repair charges – ₹ 16,000/- in respect of which, it is not possible always to maintain all the vouchers, the ad-hoc addition made is deleted.
-
2012 (4) TMI 619 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... properties at ₹ 3.80 crores. The assessee had submitted before CIT(A) that provisions of section 50C were not applicable in case of transfer of lease hold rights. The claim of the assessee that it had transferred only lease hold rights in the property had not been controverted by CIT(A). He, however, agreed with AO that provisions of section 50C were applicable. The said decision of CIT(A) is contrary to the decision of the Tribunal dated 13.5.2011 in case of Shri Atul G. Puranik Vs. ITO (supra), in which it has been held by the Tribunal that provisions of Section 50C are not applicable in case of lease hold rights in immovable property. No contrary decision of any High Court or Apex Court has been brought to the notice. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal (supra), we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.4.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 618 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ourt in the Case of Commissioner Vs. India Oil Corporation Ltd. 2009 (237) ELT A103 (Mad.). In view of the above decision, the demand is in respect of warehoused goods supplied to Indian Nvey and EOU is not sustainable. Hence it is set aside. 7. In respect of part of the demand, pertaining to the value of the goods cleared from depot at a higher price than the price on which duty is paid at the time of clearance from warehouse and in respect of the shortage, we find that the committee on dispute had not given permission to pursue these demands confirmed on these grounds. From the record, we find that the duty has not been quantified on the ground of valuation and shortage. Therefore, in this regard, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to quantify the demand on the issue of valuation as well as on shortage and to decide the issue of penalty afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
-
2012 (4) TMI 617 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... n should be made after taking into consideration the past history of the case and current events of the case. Past history of the case is that trading result shown by assessee are better as compared to earlier year as in earlier year the GP rate was shown at 10.09 whereas during the year under consideration the GP rate is 10.15 . We further noted that whatever the excess stock was found during the course of survey that has already been offered for taxation. Therefore, there should not be any addition in trading account as held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Gottan Lime Khaniz Udyog, 246 ITR 243 (Raj.). However, the fact remains that certain purchases were remained unverifiable, therefore, we are of the considered view that if a trading addition of ₹ 50,000/- is sustained that will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. 6. The order is pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 616 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... al gains of ₹ 11,07,171/- out of the total income from mutual funds amounting to ₹ 35,92,650/-. The assessee stated that the balance of interest out of ₹ 19,00,000 had been added back u/s 14A of the Act as it related to income which was not taxable. 9. The CIT(A) deleted the addition. 10. We heard both the parties and perused the books of account and details and from the facts of the case it is clear that only the interest component relating to taxable income has been claimed as a deduction. Further, the AO has not given any reasons as to why the nexus is not there. It is clear that the loan has been taken from the HDFC Bank and the interest has been paid on the same. Hence, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and delete the additions. 11. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. 12. Hence the Revenue’s appeals for both the assessment years 2004-05 and 2007 -08 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.4 .2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 615 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as set aside by the Hon’ble High Court. I find that in the present case, the facts of the case are totally different and therefore, the ratio of the Bombay High Court’s decision is not applicable. 25. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the view expressed by the ld. Member (Technical) regarding pre-deposit in the case. Reference is answered accordingly. 26. The appeal papers are sent back to the referral Bench for passing appropriate orders. (Pronounced in Court on 19-4-2012) Sd/- (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER 27. In view of the majority decision, the applicants are directed to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 2,15,895/- within four weeks and report compliance on 26-6-2012. On such compliance, pre-deposit of balance of dues adjudged shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Order pronounced on 24-4-2012) Sd/- (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) Sd/- (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
-
2012 (4) TMI 614 - ITAT DELHI
Grant-in-aid - nature of income - Held that:- The use of the word "include" in section 2(24), the word "income" shall be construed as comprehending not only those items which said section declares that these shall include but also such items as it signifies according to its natural import. Since section 2(24) has not declared that such a grant-in-aid shall be included in the income, the word "revenue" shall be construed as comprehending what it signifies according to its natural import. In relation to a business undertaking, the word "revenue" connotes incomings of the undertaking which are products of the normal working of the undertaking.
The giving of financial aid or subsidy to the aforesaid committee, which admittedly is not carrying on any business, is at the discretion of the Government or Sugar factories. Thus, the grant-in-aid in question was not a product of the normal business activities of the assessee committee, assessed by the AO as a local authority. Therefore, such a grant-in-aid could not be termed as a revenue receipt so as to form part of the total income. As already pointed out, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the aforesaid funds received by the assessee from State Government and sugar factories have been spent only for those specific projects and there was no surplus with the assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 613 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- Reopening in this case is bad in law. The reasons recorded in the present case are also scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement except mentioned of supplementary list of beneficiaries. This can not be regarded as material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes escapement of income. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not apply his own mind to the information and examine the basis of the information. Assessing Officer has accepted the information in a mechanical manner. Assessing Officer did not verify the correctness of the information received by him but merely accepted the truth of the vague information in a mechanical manner. The Assessing Officer has not even recorded his satisfaction about the correctness or otherwise of the information or his satisfaction that a case has been made out for issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has clearly substituted form for substance and therefore the Assessing Officer‘s action is not in accordance with law
-
2012 (4) TMI 612 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- The assessee, being a credit cooperative society is entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) claimed by it. We, therefore, hold that the order of the learned CIT(A) is in accordance with law and no interference is called for therein.
-
2012 (4) TMI 611 - ITAT INDORE
Eligibility for claim of exemption u/s 10(22)/10(23C) - Held that:- Since the assessee was owned by the State Government, it was a lengthy process for appointment of auditor, when the list of such auditors was given only by C & AG, the assessee has to go through various formalities for appointment of auditors and fixing their remuneration, which required proper approval and sanction of various authorities. As soon as the assessee has got the registration u/s 12AA, the assessee has also started to obtain necessary approval and also the audit report in prescribed form 10B for the claim of exemption u/s 11. Thus, we found that there was reasonable cause for delay in obtaining the audit report. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay in obtaining the audit report and direct the AO to examine the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 11 on merits, after verifying the various conditions which are required to be fulfilled, more particularly the utilization of receipts for the purpose of objects of society as discussed herein above to the extent of 85 %. Assessee is also directed to submit the other details as desired by the AO for verifying its claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
............
|
