|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 924 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 1062
Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the order passed by the ld. CIT-I, Chandigarh u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Grounds of Appeal:
1. The ld. CIT-I, Chandigarh erred in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 for Assessment Year 2005-06.
2. The ld. CIT wrongly adjudicated that deductions u/s 80IB and 80IC are not allowable.
3. The ld. CIT's order was framed on conjectures and surmises.
Facts of the Case:
The assessee-company converted two partnership firms into a public limited company and claimed deductions u/s 80IB and 80IC. The AO raised queries during scrutiny, and the ld. CIT-I, Chandigarh issued a notice u/s 263, setting aside the assessment order.
Contentions:
- The ld. AR argued that the case does not fall under section 263 as the AO had duly considered the eligibility u/s 80IB/80IC.
- The ld. DR supported the ld. CIT's action u/s 263, citing legal provisions and case laws.
Judgment:
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered and adjudicated the issue, taking a legally permissible view. The ld. CIT cannot substitute his opinion under section 263. Deductions u/s 80IB/80IC are available to the undertaking, not the assessee. The provisions of section 80IA(12) were found inapplicable. The decision in Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT supported the assessee's case. The Tribunal quashed the order u/s 263, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the case did not fall under section 263 of the Act. The impugned order was quashed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1061
Exemption u/s.11 - charitable purposes - Held that:- In the present case, the Slum Development Authorities is established for providing residential settlements to the slum dwellers without any profit motive. Moreover, primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public by providing better residential accommodations to slum dwellers and economically deprived class of society and said purpose would be charitable in nature only.
In our opinion, the activities of the SRA, present assesse are charitable in nature and hence, the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act. Moreover, the assessee has been also granted the registration u/s.12AA that has not been cancelled.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1060
Form of appeal and limitation - Section 249(4) stipulate payment of admitted tax on the returned income as a pre-requisite and mandatory condition for admission of an appeal - Held that:- The provisions of section 249(4) as they stand subsequent to 1.4.1989 do not leave any discretion in the appellate authority, since such a discretion earlier vested in the appellate authorities was withdrawn by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1.4.1989. The undisputed fact that the assessee had paid entire tax and interest as on 30-4-2010 and the first appellate authority, in our considered view, should have condoned the delay in payment and disposed off the appeal on merit.
The impugned order of the CIT (A) is set aside and matter is restored to his file with a direction to admit the appeal of the assessee, after taking on record the evidences of TDS deposited by the assessee and then to decide the appeal before him in accordance with law on merits thereof, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1059
Refusing registration of the trust under section 12AA - Held that:- Though it is claimed that education is imparted but, in our opinion, as per material on record, it is just a coaching class and cannot be equated with the word “education” as contemplated in sec. 2(15) of the Act, thereby, it can be said that the assessee’s activity is covered into the charitable purpose. Moreover, though it is argued that there is no commerciality but, we find that the entire coaching to the cadets is imparted only on the commercial basis. How much surplus is with the assessee-trust is not the decisive but the entire foundation of the exemption is based on objects and activities of the Trust / Institution. It is true that, in the Trust-Deed the assessee has shown charitable object in very colourful manner but as per the evidence on record the said objects are only on the paper.
After giving our anxious consideration to all the facts and evidence on record, in our opinion, the assessee is conducting the coaching classes of the short duration of the 2 and 3 days to the cadets desiring to joint Merchant Navy and the said coaching classes cannot be treated as charitable one. Moreover, the assessee’s activity is commercially tainted and nothing is placed before us to show that at what concessional rates the courses are being conducted. In our opinion, the Ld. DI (Exempt) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee. We find no merits in the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1058
Eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- Income arising from deposits in bank which could be said to be ready for utilization by the assessee in his business of providing credit facilities to its Members was held to be attributable to the business of providing credit facilities in order to fall within the ambit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act
Disallowance of provisions of NPA is eligible for deduction u/s 80(P)(2) (a)(i) - Held that:- There is nothing brought on record to disregard that the interest irrecoverable, which is embedded in the NPAs is nothing but interest receivable from members, though not regularly received. It is only the defaulted interest income, which is sought to be claimed as a deduction. If the said deduction is not allowed, the natural corollary is that the enhanced income would become eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i), to which the assessee is otherwise entitled.
Addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The assessee had not claimed any exemption under the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act i.e. in connection with the income which is exempt in the hands of the assessee. The deduction was claimed under chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act which had been allowed by the Assessing Officer while computing the income for the year under consideration. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the disallowance computed by Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act. Thus where the assessee had not claimed the dividend income exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, we find support from the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v Kings Exports [2009 (8) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ]. Upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1057
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether agricultural lands sold by the assessees are considered "Capital asset" u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act.
Comprehensive details:
Issue 1: Classification of agricultural lands as "Capital asset"
The assessees sold agricultural land located beyond 8 Kms from the limits of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The Assessing Officer categorized the lands as capital assets due to their proximity to the enlarged Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. However, the assessees claimed that the lands do not fall under the definition of capital asset as per the notification issued by the Central Government. The learned CIT (A) allowed the appeals based on a previous decision by Hon'ble ITAT Visakhapatnam, stating that without the required notification, the land cannot be considered a capital asset. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that the land in question is rural agricultural land and does not meet the criteria of a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by the ITAT based on the precedent set by the previous decision, affirming that the agricultural lands in question do not qualify as capital assets under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1056
Issues involved: Appeals by Revenue regarding addition on the difference between real declared book stock and inflated stock furnished to the bank for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2008-09.
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CHENNAI, the case involved the assessee, a dealer in sanitary wares, who inflated stocks for a higher loan limit. A search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted, revealing no unaccounted excess stock. However, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) added the difference between real declared book stock and inflated stock, leading to additions in subsequent years. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to decide the issue based on previous orders. The Tribunal found that the burden was on the Revenue to prove the submitted stock was erroneous, and as no mistake was detected, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee for assessment year 2002-03. It was argued that the issue was covered by a previous Tribunal order for assessment year 2001-02, and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
For assessment year 2008-09, a similar issue was involved, and based on similar reasoning, the appeal of the Revenue was also dismissed. Therefore, both appeals filed by the Revenue were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal. The order was pronounced on 8th September, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1055
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Learned CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2004-05.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) by Learned CIT(Appeals)
The revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty of Rs. 12,27,443 u/s 271(1)(c) by Learned CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2004-05. The ITAT found no merit in the appeal as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were scrutinized, with a focus on the disallowed depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,50,000. The ITAT noted that certain amounts previously deleted by ITAT could not be a basis for imposing penalty, leaving only the depreciation on goodwill in question. The penalty was deleted by the Learned CIT(Appeals) on the grounds that the admissibility of depreciation on goodwill was debatable, hence penalty imposition was unwarranted.
Issue 2: Interpretation of law regarding depreciation on goodwill
The ITAT referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to analyze the claim of depreciation on goodwill. The Assessing Officer initially accepted the claim, but the order was sought to be revised by the Commissioner u/s 263. The ITAT and subsequently the High Court upheld the Assessing Officer's view, emphasizing that if a plausible view is taken, the Commissioner cannot intervene under sec. 263. The Hon'ble High Court's analysis highlighted that goodwill represents a positive reputation built over time and falls within the definition of intangible assets. The ITAT concurred with the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court in similar cases, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the deletion of the penalty by Learned CIT(Appeals) and dismissed the revenue's appeal on 27.09.2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1054
No further income required to be attributable to the assessee as the transaction was at arm's length price - Held that:- As decided in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd's. case (2008 (8) TMI 96 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) is clearly attracted. In that case the High Court has held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further would be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.'s case (2007 (7) TMI 201 - SUPREME Court ) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee's agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time. Reliance was also placed on Para 3 of Circular No.742 dated 02.5.1996 issued by the CBDT, which referred to the fact that the agent's commission from foreign telecasting companies is 15% or so of the gross sum, to contend that the CBDT itself had considered 15% as the normally accepted commission rate payable to agents of the telecasting companies.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1053
Deduction under section 80IA(4)- Held that:- A developer who only develops (i.e. constructs) an infrastructure facility and is not envisaged to operate and maintain such facility, cannot be expected to fulfil the condition in clause (c) of section 80IA(4) since it would be an impossibility. Therefore, in view of the construction placed on the requirements of clause (c) of section 80IA(4)(i), requiring it to be harmoniously read with the main clause of section 80IA(4)(i), we find that the objection raised by the Revenue in the present case is devoid of merits
-
2011 (9) TMI 1052
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and findings.
2. Application of principles of natural justice.
3. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings:
The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which included serious charges against the appellant, D.M. Parmar, such as gross negligence, lack of integrity, and acts detrimental to the bank's interest. The Court noted that the findings were based on adequate material, mainly bank records, and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss D.M. Parmar from service. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with such findings in the exercise of judicial review u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Application of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice as certain documents requested during the enquiry were not furnished. The Supreme Court found that the Enquiry Officer had rightly determined that the requested documents were not relevant to the charges against D.M. Parmar. The Court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice since the documents related to irregularities committed by a previous manager and had no bearing on the charges against the appellant.
3. Proportionality of the Punishment of Dismissal:
The appellant contended that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the charges included serious acts of negligence and dishonesty. The Court held that the punishment of dismissal was not "shockingly or strikingly disproportionate" to the gravity of the charges. The Court cited previous decisions emphasizing the need for bank officers to maintain integrity and honesty and concluded that the High Court should not have interfered with the disciplinary authority's decision.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by D.M. Parmar. The appeal filed by the bank (C.A. No.2093/2007) was allowed, and the appeal filed by D.M. Parmar (C.A. No.2094/2007) was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1051
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,40,64,622 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1: Justification of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,40,64,622 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue's appeal contested the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,40,64,622 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. had disallowed this amount due to non-deduction of TDS, based on the auditor's note indicating the absence of proper evidence for TDS deduction on contractual obligations. The appellant had deducted TDS of Rs. 99,122 for freight paid of Rs. 89,07,453, but the A.O. found discrepancies in the declarations in Form no.15-I submitted for exemption from TDS, leading to the disallowance.
The Commissioner (Appeals), after obtaining a remand report, concluded that only in 65 cases, amounting to Rs. 44,05,281, Form no.15-I was required. For the remaining amount, each G.R. was less than Rs. 5,000, and aggregate payments per year to a particular party were less than Rs. 50,000, thus not requiring TDS deduction. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee, which the Revenue challenged.
The Tribunal noted that the A.O. did not dispute the break-up provided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the remand report. The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed all required information, including Form no.15-I, and the A.O. did not conduct any investigation or verification on these forms. The Tribunal emphasized that the A.O. should have given the assessee an opportunity to rectify any defects in Form no.15-I before drawing adverse inferences.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, stating that the declarations in Form no.15-I could not be rejected without enquiry or investigation, and there was no evidence proving these declarations were incorrect. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof, and the onus shifted to the Revenue, which failed to provide adverse material or evidence.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,40,64,622 made by the A.O. u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1050
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of non-supply of material.
2. Addition on account of capital gain.
3. Addition u/s 68.
4. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia).
5. Addition on account of low withdrawals.
6. Disallowance on account of miscellaneous expenses.
7. Disallowance on account of interest on car loan and depreciation on car.
Summary:
1. Addition on account of non-supply of material:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 4,70,072/- for the assessment year 2004-05, observing that the purchasing party did not show purchases of this amount. A protective addition was made for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal found that the assessee had supplied material worth Rs. 49,07,504/- and received full payment, including Rs. 4,70,072/-. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not summon the purchasing party u/s 131 nor provided an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
2. Addition on account of capital gain:
For the assessment year 2005-06, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,25,830/- in capital gain, disallowing renovation expenses based on an Inspector's report. The Tribunal found that the enquiry was made at the wrong address and the report was not provided to the assessee for a reply. Thus, the addition was deleted.
3. Addition u/s 68:
The AO added Rs. 2,96,500/- u/s 68, stating the assessee failed to discharge his onus. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided confirmations and affidavits of creditors and requested summons u/s 131, which the AO did not issue. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held the addition was not justified and deleted it.
4. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia):
The AO made additions on three counts: Shipping Commission (Rs. 47,392/-), Commission to NRI (Rs. 5,26,070/-), and Shipping Charges (Rs. 15,30,589/-).
- Shipping Commission: The Tribunal found that the amount was below the threshold for TDS u/s 194H and deleted the addition.
- Commission to NRI: The Tribunal held that the commission paid for services rendered outside India was not taxable in India, following a similar decision in M/s. Modern Insulator Ltd., and deleted the addition.
- Shipping Charges: The Tribunal noted that payments were made to foreign shipping companies through their agents, and as per Circular No. 723, no TDS was required. Thus, the addition was deleted.
5. Addition on account of low withdrawals:
For the assessment year 2005-06, the AO estimated household withdrawals at Rs. 8,000/- per month, adding Rs. 32,280/-. The Tribunal found the assessee's and his wife's withdrawals sufficient and reduced the addition to Rs. 10,000/-.
6. Disallowance on account of miscellaneous expenses:
This ground was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed.
7. Disallowance on account of interest on car loan and depreciation on car:
This ground was also not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed.
Assessment Year 2007-08:
The appeal was filed late by three days, which was condoned. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 9,84,328/- u/s 40(a)(ia) and Rs. 21,290/- for low withdrawals, following the same reasoning as for the assessment year 2005-06. The ground regarding interest on car loan and depreciation on car was not pressed and dismissed.
Conclusion:
All appeals of the assessee were allowed in part. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23.9.2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1049
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal stating that the questions of law raised by the Revenue were covered against them by a previous court decision. No costs were awarded. (Case citation: 2011 (9) TMI 1049 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT)
-
2011 (9) TMI 1048
Confirming taxation of dividend income - denying the exemption claimed by the Appellant u/s.10(34) - Held that:- Sec. 44 provides that computation of income of Insurance companies under various heads should be as per the First Schedule. But what we are considering is an income falling under Chapter-III which is to be excluded from total income. We are of the opinion that under the scheme of Act, no income falling within the various clauses of Sec.10 of the Act is to be compulsorily excluded in computing the total income of the assessee and the provision of Sec.44 in relation to computation of profits and gains of business of insurance do not include incomes otherwise exempt u/s.10 (34). Therefore the dividend income of ₹ 6,78,13,292 is treated as exempt u/s.10 (34) of the Act has to be excluded from the computation of total income of the assessee
Disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D 2 Sec.14A - Held that:- We delete the entire disallowance made under 14A as no expenditure is incurred for earning exemption dividend income.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1047
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - Held that:- The assessee explained genuine transactions on sales and purchases of the shares. The sources of sale of shares are explained through evidences and materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the above decisions and evidences on record, we are of the view that the authorities below have wrongly made the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act. The transactions declared by the assessee shall have to be accepted by the revenue authorities for capital gains. Orders of the authorities below are accordingly set aside and the addition is deleted.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1046
Depreciation on goodwill - Held that:- We are not inclined to go into detail whether depreciation on good will is allowable or not but the fact remains that the assessee has not purchased any good will but has purchased license, interest, privilege, franchise etc. from M/s. DKD which are undisputedly covered by section 32(1)(ii) and, therefore, the depreciation is allowable and the ld. CIT (A) has allowed the depreciation on these intangible assets, and we have no hesitation in confirming the order of ld. CIT (A) on this aspect. Accordingly we confirm the order of ld. CIT (A).
-
2011 (9) TMI 1045
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,46,61,718/- made by the AO on account of receipt of on money and excess sale of 65 plots.
2. Restriction of disallowance of Rs. 6,51,470/- out of total addition of Rs. 14,65,772/-.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 3,46,61,718/- on Account of Receipt of On Money and Excess Sale of 65 Plots:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,46,61,718/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of receipt of on money and excess sale of 65 plots. The AO based his conclusion on a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Act, during which incriminating documents were found. The AO observed that only 25 plots were unsold, implying that 65 plots were sold by the assessee. The AO also alleged that the assessee was not recording the full sale consideration in its books and was charging on money.
The assessee contended that the AO's conclusion was based on a loose pamphlet used for advertisement purposes, which did not have any evidentiary value. The assessee argued that the pamphlet was a business strategy to attract customers and that the actual number of plots sold during the year was only 16, supported by conveyance deeds.
The CIT(A) found the assessee's contention to be correct, noting that the AO did not consider the conveyance deeds for plots sold in subsequent years. The CIT(A) observed that the AO's conclusion was not supported by corroborative evidence, such as cash found or statements from buyers confirming the payment of on money. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's reliance on loose papers without corroborative evidence was not justified and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's conclusion was based on unsubstantiated notings on impounded material and that no incriminating evidence was found to support the allegation of on money. The Tribunal noted that the sale deeds were registered at the government-fixed rate of Rs. 400 per sq. yard, and no evidence was presented to show that similar plots were sold at higher rates.
2. Restriction of Disallowance of Rs. 6,51,470/- out of Total Addition of Rs. 14,65,772/-:
The AO observed that the assessee had incurred various expenditures amounting to Rs. 14,65,772/- as per impounded documents. The AO concluded that these expenditures were out of unexplained sources and made an addition of the entire amount.
The assessee argued that the noted expenditures were only estimates for plot development and were not actually spent. The assessee also showed that a sum of Rs. 8,14,302/- was recorded as work in progress, funded by the partners.
The CIT(A) agreed with the AO that the expenditures were actually incurred but noted that the amount of Rs. 8,14,302/- shown as work in progress could not be treated as unexplained. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to the balance amount of Rs. 6,51,470/-.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the amount shown as work in progress should not be treated as unexplained and that the balance amount of Rs. 6,51,470/- was rightly considered as incurred from undisclosed sources.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in both issues. The deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,46,61,718/- on account of receipt of on money and excess sale of plots was justified due to lack of corroborative evidence. The restriction of disallowance to Rs. 6,51,470/- was also upheld, considering the documented work in progress.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1044
Issues involved: Confined relief sought by respondents before High Court, quashing of demand notices, refund of amounts realized, pursuit of other reliefs.
SLP (C) No. 16197/2011:
In this case, during the hearing, the senior advocate for the respondents, Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, stated that they would confine their relief before the High Court to canceling and withdrawing the impugned demand contained in specific letters. The judgment of the Bombay High Court was clarified to remain limited to the prayer made on behalf of certain writ petitioners only. Other members of the Chamber were allowed to seek their respective reliefs as per the law. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
SLP (C) No. 16713 of 2011:
During the hearing, the senior advocate for the respondents, Novel Properties Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the relief claimed would be confined to quashing a specific demand notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. It was clarified that the High Court judgment would remain limited to the quashing of the demand related to assignments made in favor of the respondents. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
SLP (C) No. 16636 of 2011:
In this case, the senior advocate for the respondents stated that the demand would remain confined to a specific clause in the letter. The High Court judgment was clarified to be limited to quashing the mentioned demand letter. If payments had been realized based on the now-quashed demand notices, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was directed to refund the amounts without delay. The respondents were allowed to pursue their other reliefs before the Corporation as per the law. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
SLP (C) No. 16709 of 2011:
The advocate for the respondent in this case stated that the demand would be confined to a specific prayer clause seeking to quash a particular order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Estate. It was clarified that the High Court judgment would remain limited to quashing the mentioned demand order. The special leave petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1043
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A)-10, Mumbai's Order regarding wealth tax payment, head office expenses, interest u/s. 234D, applicability of section 115JB to a bank, and MAT provisions for a banking company.
Wealth Tax Payment Disallowance:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the disallowance of wealth tax payment while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A) held that wealth tax is not included in income tax, citing relevant case law. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision based on legal precedents and rejected the Revenue's appeal.
Head Office Expenses Disallowance:
The Revenue also challenged the deletion of the disallowance of head office expenses while computing book profit u/s. 115JB. The CIT(A) ruled that the Assessing Officer lacked authority to recast profits as per books without valid reasons, following the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, confirming the deletion of the disallowance.
Interest u/s. 234D:
Regarding interest u/s. 234D, the CIT(A) held that it should not be charged for a specific assessment year due to prospective operation of the amendment. The ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Revenue did not present opposing arguments, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
Applicability of Section 115JB to Bank:
The assessee contended that section 115JB provisions are not applicable to a bank. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider this matter in line with the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, supporting the assessee's position. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
MAT Provisions for Banking Company:
The cross-objection raised the issue of MAT provisions not being applicable to a banking company, supported by a decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to review the matter in compliance with the law, resulting in the cross-objection being treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
General Grounds:
Two general grounds raised by the Revenue were deemed not to require separate consideration.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by the assessee on the MAT provisions issue, directing a reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. The Order was pronounced on 28-09-2011.
............
|
9911796707
