|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 848 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 952 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rds interest income on deposit with Electricity company, I find that appellant has failed to prove any such nexus & thus, action of assessing officer in disallowing deduction u/s.10B on said interest income of ₹ 2,02,386/- is confirmed. Accordingly, out of total disallowance of ₹ 11,47,586/- made by assessing officer, disallowance to the extent of ₹ 9,45,200/- is hereby deleted & the balance amount of ₹ 2,02,386/- is confirmed.” 4.2. On the basis of observation of ld.CIT(A) since the assessee has not proved the nexus in respect of part of interest, therefore, the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) appears to be a justified view, hence, hereby confirmed. 5. Further, we have already followed the decision of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, Revenue’s ground is also dismissed. 6. In the result, Assessee’s appeal as well as Revenue’s appeal both are dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 27/5/2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 951 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion on account of un- reliability in the manufacturing/trading results of the assessee, would be wrong. Hence, we find no justification for the plea of the assessee to set off the income surrendered during the survey against the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of trading results. Hence, on this issue the assessee fails." 7. No error or perversity could be pointed out in the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal after allowing benefit of ₹ 2,89,000/- on account of re-computation of turnover of the assessee had sustained the addition of ₹ 40,11,000/-. The judgments on which reliance had been placed, being based on individual fact situation involved therein, do not advance the case of the assessee in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 8. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 950 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 40(a)(ia) does not arise. However, it is to be seen that these expenses are part of the appellant’s cost of project which he will claim against the receipts in subsequent years. Therefore, these expenses will have the effect of reducing the income of the appellant to that extent. In view of this the expenditure to that extent is allowable only when same has been made after deduction of tax at source under the specified provisions of the Act.” Since, there is no dispute about the fact that assessee has not claimed the expenses in the profit and loss account and has capitalized them under the head ‘preoperative expense’ the disallowance of these expenses under the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable. Therefore we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and same is hereby upheld. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/05/2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 949 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oming to this conclusion, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench, 'H', New Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education Society, in ITA No.3182/Del/2008, assessment year 2006-07 dated 2.6.2009, as also the following cases - (i) ITO Vs.Trustees of Marathi Mission and Vice Versa (1982) 1 ITD (BOM) 539 (ii) Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs.Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR (BOM) 464 (iii) CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2003)264 ITR (Bom.) 110 7.1 Thus, in light of the above discussion, the claim of the appellant in respect of depreciation amounting to ₹ 36,53,818/- is allowed.” Since the relief has been granted on the basis of various judgments of ITAT, Delhi Bench, respectfully following the same, we sustain the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 5. 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 948 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... n reasonable for deeming the authority below that the application for approval of the claimed exemption u/s.10(23C) of the Act has been allowed by the ld. Chief Commissioner to frame the assessment for the A.Y. in question accordingly. It is however pointed out by the Ld. AR before us has pointed out at Bar that till date no action has been taken by the ld. Chief Commissioner on the said application dated 13.3.2006. Under these circumstances, the above stated two issues are decided in favour of the appellant accordingly. Consequently, while setting aside the orders of the authorities below, we direct the A.O to frame assessment for the year in question afresh treating the appellant as enjoying approval of exemption u/s. 10(23C) for the claimed period in its application dated 3.3.2006 (acquired deemed approval) after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 9. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 31st May 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 947 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... this ground of appeal of the revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed. 10. On ground No.4, the revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 3,16,099/- made on account of freight and on ground No.5, the revenue challenged deletion of addition of ₹ 1,16,020/- made on account of inland haulage charges. Both the disallowances were made being the amounts paid to M/s. Trans World Shipping Services because no taxes have been deducted. The learned CIT(A) found that this is the same ground in which payment is made to NRI shipping company and by following Board Circular No.723 addition was deleted. On consideration of the above facts, we note these grounds are same as ground No.3. By following the reasons for dismissing ground No.3, we dismiss these grounds of appeal of the revenue. In the result, grounds No.4 and 5 of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24-05-2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 946 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from sale of shares - capital gain or business income - surplus on the sale of shares - HELD THAT:- It appears to us that basically the number of shares of a particular company purchased by the assessee had increased which substantially contributed to the increase in the value of the investment. This shows that the assessee is basically an investor more than a share dealer. The stand of the assessee has been accepted by the Revenue authorities in the asst. yrs. 2001-02 and 2004-05 in assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3). Therefore, there is enough evidence to show that the assessee is an investor in shares and the surplus arising on the sale of shares should be assessed as short-term or long-term capital gains, depending on the period of holding and not as business income.
It thus appears to us that the CIT(A) took an incorrect view of the matter in the asst. yr. 2005-06 and that the CIT(A) who dealt with the appeal for the asst. yr. 2006-07 has taken the correct view of the matter and applied the appropriate principles correctly in holding that the assessee was an investor in shares. Since the AO had treated the assessee as a share dealer, he valued 184 shares of Infosys Technology at ₹ 4,896.21 per share. This included 46 original shares which were valued at ₹ 2,25,217. The average cost of 543 bonus shares of Tata Steel was valued at ₹ 68,526. The AO’s reasoning would have held good if his decision to treat the assessee as a dealer in shares is upheld. However we have held that the assessee is an investor in shares. The bonus shares cannot therefore be valued as if they are stock-in-trade. We therefore delete the additions of ₹ 2,25,217 and ₹ 68,526.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Department’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 945 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... n activity of producing paper. But, nevertheless this would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the turbo generators were not an undertaking by itself eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of power generated therefrom used for captive consumption. Especially so, since steam based generating units, where steam was only an incidental output of main manufacturing activity, was held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tanfac Industries Ltd. (supra) to be eligible for 80-IA deduction in respect of power generated and captively used. We are therefore of the opinion that the assessee is bound to succeed in these appeals. Its claim for deduction under Section 80- IA of the Act has to be allowed in respect of its power generated from TG-3 Boiler 4 and TG-4 Boiler 5 units as well. 9. In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years stand allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 13th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 944 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... sessees and for other years in the case of the assessee.” (iii) The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 26 (P & H) held as under “…. that once a similar proposition had been accepted by the Revenue in respect of assessment year 1997-98, then it was not open to it to challenge a similar finding and deviate from its earlier stand.” 9.1 In the present case the Department has accepted net profit rate of 2 in the assessament year 1994-1995 however made the addition by applying the net profit rate of 3.73 for the year under consideration, therefore by keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, we delete the addition of ₹ 9,77,250 made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 23.5.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 943 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... RTI, as follows “Subject RTI application received from Shri Mahesh Shrivastava, Keshavpuram, Delhi, regarding approval or ratification of STPI, approval by BOA formed by MOC to claim benefits of 100 EOU Scheme. Please refer to your RTI application dated March 10,2011 received on 17.03.2011) on the subject mentioned above and to inform that no approval/ratification of STPI approval is required from BOA formed by Ministry of Commerce by power conferred under section 14 of IDR Act, 1951. Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee for EHTPs and ESTPs (IMSC) is competent in grant approval for STPI unit to claim all benefits under 100 EOU Scheme as per Press Note 2 of 1993 (copy enclosed).” 8. In view of the above, we find the grievance of the assessee to be justified and it is accepted as such. We hold that the assessee is entitled to claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 03.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 942 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... only, in the absence of jurisdictional High Court decision, it would be fit and proper for us to follow the decisions of other High Courts being superior forum. Thus, following the decisions cited supra of Bombay and Kerala High Court, we hold that Rule 8D is only prospective and cannot be applied for the assessment year 2007-08. 14. Now turning to the quantum of disallowance there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee himself has disallowed 5 , following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. In such circumstances, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the same as the assessee has accepted the earlier decision of the Tribunal and has not taken it before the High Court, particularly the facts and circumstances remaining the same. In this view of the matter, we are dismissing this ground of appeal of the Revenue also. 15. In result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2011, at Bangalore.
-
2011 (5) TMI 941 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioners have no right to insist on presence of the advocate at the time of interrogation. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having perused the documents on record, in peculiar facts of the case when we find that there are allegations and counter-allegations, to avoid any controversy and to ensure that there are no further allegations of ill-treatment by the respondents, it would be appropriate to permit the presence of the advocate of petitioner No.2 when he is being interrogated by the Revenue authorities. It is, however, clarified that the advocate may remain within sight but not within the hearing range. It is further clarified that we shall not be taken to have accepted the allegation of the petitioner of any ill-treatment. The petitioners are directed to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner No.2 shall make himself available for further interrogation forthwith without further delay. 7. With above direction petition is disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 940 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of section 153A/153C of the Act. 16. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C of the Act. With regard to merit of the addition, it was submitted that during the course of assessment, Assessing Officer found that there was gift received by the assessee. Every assessee and every year is separate and distinct. But the authorities below have considered the family history of the gifts from and to different persons and being influenced on the same collective facts and assessed the gifts as income which is void ab initio, incorrect and against the principle laid down in cases narrated. 17. As we have already decided the legal issue regarding assumption of jurisdiction, we are not going into the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 18. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in open Court on 31st May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 939 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt of compensation in respect of the acquired land falls for taxation under Section 56 of the Act as "income from other sources" and is exigible to tax in the year of receipt under cash system of accountancy. It had also been observed that where the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts by adopting any specific method, it shall be treated to be cash system of accountancy. In the present case, the interest received by the petitioner was on account of delay in making the payment of enhanced compensation and, therefore, would fall under Section 28 of the 1894 Act. Such payment could not par-take the character of compensation for acquisition of agricultural land and, thus, was not exempt under the Act. Once that was so, the tax at source had been rightly deducted by the payer. We find no infirmity in the 'Tax Deducted at Source' certificate issued by the payer of the amount . Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 938 - CESTAT BANGALORE
MODVAT credit - diesel generating set - removal after use - whether the appellant was required to reverse the MODVAT credit availed on a diesel generating set (capital goods) when it was disposed of by way of sale on 12.11.2004? - Held that: - On a perusal of the Tribunal's judgment in Cummins India case [2007 (3) TMI 589 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], we find that the payment of duty by the assessee on the transaction value of old / used capital goods (on which CENVAT credit had been availed) was accepted by the Tribunal - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2011 (5) TMI 937 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oth Section 57 (4) and Section 60 are read harmoniously, then neither of the provisions will be rendered otiose. As a rule of construction the Court must not while interpreting provisions in the same statute, read a provision otiose. The legislative intent must be given effect to. The Court must attempt to make the provisions workable both section 57(4) and Section 60 to achieve their object. We may clarify, considering the observations made in Shiv Shakti Trading (supra), that the validity of the seizure can be considered in proceeding in appeal or revision as that directly reflect on the issue of issuance of direction under the proviso of sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Act, 2008. In the light of that, the reference is answered in terms of the judgment decided in Shiv Shakti Trading (supra) and as now explained. The matter be remitted back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the matter on merits. Place the matter on 6th July, 2011 before the appropriate bench.
-
2011 (5) TMI 936 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rding to the appellate authority, since was mandatory deduction, could not have led to the conclusion that the amount was earned by the assessee respondent as an income in that year. 8. After this detailed discussion of both the appellate authorities below, the Tribunal has held that the advance received by the assessee, against the purchase of material at the site before the execution of work, cannot be counted to be an income of the assessee. More particularly, when it had been following the practice of showing the advance receipt from the parties in the balancesheet and when after the execution of the work, the said receipt was offered for the tax, as discussed extensively Tribunal correctly concurred with the order of CIT(Appeals). With no error in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and with absolutely no question of law much less the substantial question of law arising for this Court's determination, this appeal is dismissed upholding the order of the Tribunal.
-
2011 (5) TMI 935 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the share application money and sale of premium as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee filed necessary documents as desired by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings alongwith the assessment order of the share applicants on 12.12.2007. The assessee also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd (294 ITR 661). In this case, it has been held that even if it was assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were not genuine, under no circumstances the amount of share application could be regarded as undisclosed business income of the assessee. The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) squarely supports the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard also. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.5.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 934 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rsquo;ble High Court. In appeal u/s 260-A of the I.T. Act filed before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court against the order of the Tribunal, we find the assessee has taken number of grounds challenging the order of the Tribunal dismissing grounds of appeal No. 1 to 7. It has been held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly known as BSNL) vs. JCIT in M.A. No. 512/Mum/08 order dated 18th July, 2009 that when a question is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, it is not right for the assessee to agitate the same or part of the question before the Tribunal. It is for the High Court to adjudicate the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Tribunal, therefore, on this ground also, the M.A. filed by the assessee has to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the Misc. application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 933 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... set, the provisions of section 48 are applicable for computing the income chargeable under the head “capital gains” and the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition, which working out the gain arising on the transfer of the said capital asset. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee by adopting the indexed cost of acquisition in determining the income from long term capital gain on sale of plant and machinery (not in use) Thus grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the merits of the addition are allowed. In view the same, there is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the rejection of claim under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I.T.A.No.1397/Chd/2010 is allowed and the appeal in I.T.A.No.1398/Chd/2010 is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31st day of May, 2011.
............
|
