Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 2013 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 886 Records

• 2013 (3) TMI 672
  

  Assessment u/s 143 & 144 - The AO, during the course of assessment, made additions without rejecting the books of account. CIT (A) held that the AO ignored the basic facts by making addition for opening stock, purchases and other expenses in as much as the opening stock and purchases are part of trading account, as shown in the audited accounts and that therefore, they cannot be rejected without rejecting the books of account. - HELD THAT:- CIT (A)'s order upheld relying on the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL PARDUMAN KUMAR, ETC. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND NEW DELHI-III (AND OTHER APPEALS) [1978 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] Decision in favor of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 671
  

  Addition based on loose sheets found during the course of survey u/s. 133A - Held that:- Assessing Officer could make the addition on the basis of direct evidence on hand. If there is direct evidence on hand with the Assessing Officer for small period covering the assessment year, he could use the same for estimating the income of the whole year and as such the addition cannot be made only on presumption basis. In this case the material considered by the Assessing Officer for assessment is only loose sheets containing investments made by the partners of the firm. But the Assessing Officer not taken any pains to substantiate the addition based on the loose sheets. Being so, no addition can be made solely on the basis of a notebook or loose sheets which are dumb documents and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to bring on record corroborative material to show that the assessee has concealed the income. Being so, in our opinion, deletion of addition by the CIT(A) is justified

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 670
  

  Disallowance of depreciation in respect of a Pajero Car and six tippers - Held that:- The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on all these motor vehicles which may undeniably owned by the assessee-company and were ready for use may be on the last day of the F.Y. and therefore, confirm the impugned finding of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. (1) of revenue’s appeal.

  Addition on account of sundry balance written off - Held that:- The main amount advanced to Bhardwaj Transport Corp., Mathura, is shown as the opening balance in the ledger account of A.Y. 2005-06. We are convinced that all these advances are intimately connected with assessee’s business and the assessee has written off these amounts in its books of accounts in terms of Section 28 of the Act as bad-debts. As a result, we dismiss ground No. (2) of revenue’s appeal.

  Non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) u/s 194J on consultancy charges - Held that:- The assessee has only reimbursed the amount as per the agreement. As per the agreement entered into by this assessee with the concerned Authority it is a compulsory payment to be made as a reimbursement.On this amount, obviously Section 194J is not applicable. - Decided against revenue

  TDS u/s 194C - purchase of sign-boards - whether this payment is towards a works-contract or not? - Held that:- As per the A.O. these payments are not saved under the umbrella of Circular No. 681 dated 8.3.1994. He has also mentioned that this payment is not towards purchase of goods because the boards are made as per the specification supplied by the assessee and the entire work has been done by the payee accordingly. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that there is no evidence on record to show that these payments are not for ‘contract for sale’ and are for ‘contract for work’. In our considered opinion, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is cursory and he has mainly relied on the narration on the bills but he has not gone into the real aspect of the controversy. On the other hand, the A.O. has examined this issue in depth and has found that this is nothing but a ‘works-contract’ between the assessee and the payee.But still we are of the opinion that this issue has not been correctly investigated into and examined by the A.O. Thus we need to restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication as per law

  Sale of tippers - sale value reduced from WDV of the concerned block of assets and depreciation has been claimed on reduced block value in the computation - Held that:- There is no dispute regarding the fact that total sale consideration has been offered in the depreciation chart while reducing the block of assets and on the balance WDV of the block depreciation was claimed as stated before the A.O. Apart from the reasoning given by ld. CIT(A) as above, we are of the considered opinion that Goetz India’s decision (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court a) debars the A.O. from giving any relied if not sought but authorizes the Tribunal to undo any injustice so done. Therefore, we confirm the impugned deletion of the addition which has been made only on account of pedantic reasons.

  Addition u/s 40A - rejection of books - Held that:- the rejection of the books of account by A.O. is not correct as he has not pinpointed any specific defect, much less any material defect, therein and not only has accepted the declared turnover but has also accepted the declared G.P. Rate. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly not upheld the rejection of the books. The cash expenses have been made due to the mitigating circumstances mentioned in the above-extracted submission of the ld. A.R. which according to us are justified in that situation. However, neither the A.O. nor the ld. CIT(A) and even the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submissions throw any light on this aspect as to whether the cash expenses were not incurred in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. This issue requires a fresh adjudication at the level of the A.O.

  TDS u/s 194C - assessee made entire payment before 31.03.2007 towards hiring of trucks for the shifting of plant from one place to another place - Held that:- Provisions of Section 194C are not applicable in view of the Special Bench’s decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Vs. ACIT (2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ) wherein it has been held that provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act are applicable only to amounts of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenses which have been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of TDS.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 669
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on plot size.
  2. Completion of the project within the prescribed time limit.
  3. Misconceived grounds related to a different project.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Eligibility for Deduction u/s 80IB(10) Based on Plot Size

  The primary issue in all appeals relates to the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the plot size did not meet the minimum requirement of 1 acre as per clause (b) of section 80IB(10). The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the plot was divided into four parts, none of which individually exceeded 1 acre. However, the CIT(A) found that the entire plot of 7265.63 sq.mtrs was acquired as a single plot and not divided. The CIT(A) relied on the 7/12 extract and the development agreement, which described the plot as a single portion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the AO's assertions lacked supporting material and that the road within the plot was an internal road, not owned by the Municipal Corporation.

  Issue 2: Completion of the Project Within the Prescribed Time Limit

  The Revenue argued that the project was not completed within the stipulated time, as the completion certificate was obtained on 06-06-2008, beyond the deadline of 31-03-2008. However, the CIT(A) clarified that the completion certificate dated 06-06-2008 pertained to a different project named "Vrundavan," not "Shreerang Vihar." The Tribunal found that the "Shreerang Vihar" project was completed within the required timeframe, supported by occupancy certificates issued by the local authority. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

  Issue 3: Misconceived Grounds Related to a Different Project

  The Revenue's third ground of appeal was related to the "Vrundavan" project, which was not relevant for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06, as no deduction u/s 80IB(10) was claimed for this project during these years. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as misconceived.

  Conclusion:

  For the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2005-06, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as in the case of A.Y. 2004-05 and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision that the "Vrundavan" project met the plot size requirement of 1 acre. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

  Pronounced in the Open court on this, the 20th day of March 2013.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 668
  
  Issues: Valuation of imported raw materials and components, inclusion of royalty amount in the value of imported goods.
  
  Valuation of imported raw materials and components: The case involved a License and Technical Assistance Agreement between two related parties for the manufacture of Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) by the appellant. The issue was whether the royalty amount of US $ 2,00,000 over 20 years should be included in the value of the imported raw materials and components. The Additional Commissioner held that the royalty was not includible, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The appellant argued that the royalty was not a condition for the sale of imported materials, and it was paid independent of the sourcing of goods. They contended that the royalty was for technology and knowhow related to the finished goods, not for the imported materials specifically.
  
  Inclusion of royalty amount: The Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, specifically Rule 10(1)(c) and (e), allow for the inclusion of royalties and license fees related to imported goods if they are a condition of sale and not already included in the price paid. The tribunal noted that the department failed to show that the royalty was a condition precedent for sale. Referring to the Oxford Dictionary definition of "condition," the tribunal emphasized that the royalty must be a stipulation on which something else depends for it to be included in the assessable value. Citing the decision in Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal held that if the payment of royalty does not have a nexus with the working of the imported goods, it should not be included in the price. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, stating that the assessable value should reflect the true transaction value as per Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 667
  

  Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- No part of interest can be considered to have been incurred towards investment fetching exempt income. Once there is no deduction for interest expenditure in this regard, there cannot be any question of making any disallowance u/s 14A. We, therefore, order for the deletion of addition u/s 14A to the extent of ₹ 59.79 lakh on account of interest in relation to investment in tax free bonds.

  Working out disallowance u/s 14A - as per assessee AO also included the amount invested by the assessee in share capital of certain firms, interest from which was offered for taxation - Held that:- Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vishnu Anand Mahajan v. ACIT [2012 (6) TMI 297 - ITAT, Ahmedabad] has discussed the issue when there is receipt of interest from the firm chargeable to tax and share in the profits which is exempt. In this order the Special Bench has laid down a mechanism for working out the disallowance u/s 14A. The Assessing Officer is directed to work out the second part of disallowance as per Rule 8D afresh in the light of the afore-noted order of the Special Bench after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 666
  

  Determination of appropriate method and amount of ALP - rejection of comparables offered by the assessee - Addition of management fees to TP adjustments - Held that:- CUP method is not separately applicable for management fee transactions - TNMM applied on the enterprise level is a most appropriate method - the revised set of ten comparables submitted by the assessee in reply to the show-cause notice is the correct set to be used for comparability analysis - directed to TPO to adopt the ten comparables while computing the comparable margins to arrive at the ALP for the TNMM

  Held that:- the management services fee was paid to the AE in connection with setting up of a new factory - the expenditure cannot be considered as operating expenses - does not constitute operational expenses hence same should be excluded while computing the operating profits of the assessee - directed to make no transfer pricing adjustment with respect to management fees and also recompute PLI by excluding the management fees

  Whether sale of scrap considered as operating income - Held that:- The scrap material has come from the core manufacturing activity of the assessee - Hence it needs to form part of the operational income - recompute the margin of the assessee by including sale of scrap as operating income - Decided in favor of assessee

  Disallowing the benefit of range of +/-5% while determining the ALP - Held that:- Assessee shall not be entitled to exercise its option of +/-5% if the variation between the arithmetical mean and the price at which such transaction has actually been undertaken exceeds 5 per cent of the arithmetical mean - Decided against assessee

  Disallowing the provision of agency commission u/s 37 - Held that:- This commission payment accrues to the assessee company on incidence of sale and deferment of the payment of agency commission does not render the commission to be contingent in nature - AO Is directed to verify this aspect as to whether the liability of payment of commission to agents has arisen during the relevant AY and decide in accordance with law - Remanded back

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 665
  
  Issues:
  The appeal against the adjudication order confirming the demand of Cenvat credit and imposing a penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
  
  Adjudication Order:
  The appellant contested the denial of credit on duty paid on inputs for cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls, arguing that the process undertaken amounts to manufacture. The Revenue initially issued show cause notices demanding duty, which led the appellant to start paying duty and availing credit. However, a subsequent show cause notice denied credit on the ground that the activity does not amount to manufacture.
  
  Appellant's Contention:
  The appellant highlighted that they had paid more duty than the credit denied, including duty paid from PLA. They cited a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support their argument that credit cannot be denied when duty is accepted by the Revenue.
  
  Revenue's Argument:
  The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision to assert that cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls does not amount to manufacture, justifying the demand made.
  
  Tribunal's Decision:
  The Tribunal noted that the appellant initially did not pay duty on the activity but started paying duty and availing credit in response to show cause notices. Considering the conflicting opinions, the Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court decision to rule in favor of the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 664
  
  Issues Involved:
  The issues involved in the judgment include the classification of imported coal, the application of customs duty exemptions, the provisional assessment of duty, the alleged misclassification of coal by the petitioners, the authority of the Port Authorities to prevent removal of goods, and the petitioners' request for an interim direction to release the imported goods.
  
  Classification of Imported Coal:
  The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing cement and import 'steam coal' classified under CTH-2701 1920, which is exempted from customs duty as per a government notification. The respondents allege that the coal imported by the petitioners is misclassified as 'Bituminous coal' instead of 'Steam coal', leading to duty evasion.
  
  Provisional Assessment of Duty:
  The petitioners claim that all Bills of Entry for importing coal were provisionally assessed, and they paid the assessed duty. However, the respondents argue that the self-assessment by the petitioners was incorrect, and the goods are liable for confiscation pending further investigation.
  
  Authority of Port Authorities:
  The Port Authorities are preventing the petitioners from lifting the imported coal based on instructions from the Director of Revenue Intelligence, alleging misclassification of coal and short payment of duty. The petitioners challenge this action as arbitrary and illegal.
  
  Petitioners' Request for Interim Direction:
  The petitioners seek a direction to allow the removal of imported goods without paying the alleged differential duty. They argue that their manufacturing process would be adversely affected if the goods are not released immediately. However, the court denies this request, citing the pending investigation and the significant amounts of duty owed by the petitioners.
  
  Decision and Conclusion:
  The court dismisses the petitioners' request for interim relief, stating that releasing the goods without payment of the differential duty would be against public interest. The petitioners are allowed to request the lifting of consignments from the port, which will be considered by the authorities in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate classification and duty payment in customs matters.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 663
  
  Issues Involved:
  The issues involved in this case are related to the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of STP Rajkot Unit without adjustment of losses of other units and without adjustment of brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years. The substantial questions of law raised for consideration are whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10A without such adjustments and whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s order directing revision of the reduction of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of earlier years.
  
  Judgment Details:
  
  Issue 1: Deduction u/s 10A without adjustment of losses:
  The respondent-assessee, engaged in the business of export of computer software, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 10A for the STP Rajkot Unit due to not setting off unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of other units. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding it entitled to the deduction under Section 10A without such adjustments. The Tribunal also upheld this decision, relying on previous judgments. The High Court concurred with the findings, emphasizing that the deduction under Section 10A is to be given effect at the stage of computing profits and gains of business, distinct from the provisions of Chapter VI-A regarding carry forward and set off of losses.
  
  Issue 2: Revision of reduction of brought forward losses:
  The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s order directing the revision of the reduction of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss of earlier years. The High Court affirmed this decision, stating that the deduction under Section 10A must be given at the stage of computing profits and gains of business, as per the statutory provisions. The Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in similar cases.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, aligning with the decisions of the lower authorities and emphasizing the correct application of the provisions of Section 10A and Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 662
  

  Interest on refund - Held that:- Assesse is entitled for the interest on refund according to the provision of section 244A(1) and the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any direction contrary to law.

  No justifiable reason to interfere with order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) directing the AO to exclude the interest element of refund earlier granted as the provisions of the I.T Act do not permit to include ‘interest’ within ‘refund’ in the given situation while deducting the amount of refund issued earlier, and therefore ground no 2 is hereby dismissed.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 661
  

  Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is Patna High Court CWJC No. 3784 of 2013 (3) dt.04-03-2013 disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the betel nuts and the vehicle of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 17.1.2013 passed in the aforesaid case after due verification in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act and after fixing a reasonable value for the Bank guarantee to be produced by the petitioners in that regard - Decided in favor of the assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 660
  
  Issues Involved:
  - Deletion of addition of income from other sources in respect of Long Term Capital Gain
  - Recognition of share transactions as genuine and not as accommodation entries
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Deletion of addition of income from other sources in respect of Long Term Capital Gain
  The appeal by the Revenue was directed against the orders of the CIT (A) regarding the deletion of an addition of income from other sources in respect of Long Term Capital Gain shown by the assessee as the sale of shares. The Revenue contended that the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gain was based on accommodation entries and lacked substantiation. The AO treated the LTCG offered by the assessee as bogus following a previous year's order. However, the CIT (A) disagreed with the AO and directed the amount to be treated as LTCG but taxed at the prevailing rate due to non-payment of STT. The CIT (A) also found the STCG transactions in shares of a specific company to be genuine. The Revenue challenged this decision before the ITAT.
  
  Issue 2: Recognition of share transactions as genuine and not as accommodation entries
  The ITAT considered the previous year's decision in the assessee's case where similar issues were raised and decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that off-market transactions were not unlawful activities and emphasized the genuineness of the share transactions based on documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying share transfers with the Registrar of Companies. As the facts were similar to the previous year and the CIT (A) had already deleted the addition based on the evidence presented, the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the order, especially since the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee in the earlier year.
  
  In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of income from other sources in respect of Long Term Capital Gain and recognizing the share transactions as genuine. The judgment emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and consistency in decision-making based on previous rulings.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 659
  

  Sale of shares - LTCG OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES - Held that:- Since assessee has furnished copy of the sale bills of the sale of Talent Infoway Ltd, and bank statements including purchase contract notes and other details on the basis of which CIT(A) held the transactions as genuine, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). Since AO also relied on the findings in the case of assessee’s husband in assessment year 2005-06 and the learned CIT (A) also deleted the addition based on the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A).

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 658
  

  Method of computing ALP and selection of comparables - Held that:- TNMM was determined as the most appropriate method to determine the ALP by assessee - Rejected by TPO - TPO adopted Resale Price Method as the appropriate method - The assessee is engaged in product replacement service transaction - he has no right to fix the resale price or to choose the customer to whom the products are to be sold - thus assessee cannot he held to be a trader or distributor of the goods - TNMM is to be regarded as the most appropriate method as per Hon'ble Tribunal the decision in the appellant's own [ITA No.1410(Bang)/2010]

  Held that:- Assessee is performing the function of storing the spare parts imported and supply - The comparables adopted by the assessee are also performing similar functions - As per TPO the assets employed and the risk undertaken by these companies are also higher than the assessee hence rejected - This issue ids remitted bck to TPO with a direction to recompute the ALP by adopting the proper comparables - Matter remanded back

  The assessee co. is involved in undertaking of the required coding of the programs and it is also responsible for physical testing of the products such as integration testing, software testing, system testing, performance and regression testing etc - The size of the comparable is an important factor in comparability process - Tata Elxsi and Flextronics are functionally different from that of the assessee and hence they deserve to be deleted from the list of six comparables and hence there remains only four companies as comparables

  Held that:- Assessee incurred net foreign exchange loss incurred in the normal course of carrying on the business operations as 'operating' in nature and thus included as part of 'total operating costs' - profit/loss on foreign exchange fluctuation is treated as part of operating cost - Decided in favor of revenue

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 657
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54B.
  2. Allowing the deduction u/s 54F which was not claimed before the Assessing Officer.
  3. Justification of allowing deduction u/s 54F despite non-satisfaction of stipulated conditions.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s 54B
  The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 53,83,335/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54B. The assessee initially claimed deduction u/s 54B for investment in agricultural land, which was rejected by the AO. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that the deduction should have been claimed u/s 54F instead, as no agricultural land was involved.
  
  Issue 2: Allowing Deduction u/s 54F
  The CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 54F, which was not claimed before the AO. The CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, which allows the Tribunal to entertain such claims. The CIT(A) examined the scheme of u/s 54F and found that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming the deduction.
  
  Issue 3: Justification of Deduction u/s 54F
  The CIT(A) analyzed the conditions u/s 54F, noting that the assessee:
  - Is an individual.
  - Transferred a long-term capital asset (N.A. plot).
  - Purchased a residential house within three years of the transfer.
  - Invested Rs. 55,91,740/- in the new residential house before 31-03-2010, within the extended time limit u/s 139(4).
  
  The CIT(A) cited several decisions supporting the view that the time limit for filing the return u/s 139(4) should be considered for depositing the unutilized sale proceeds. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee met all conditions for deduction u/s 54F and allowed the claim, confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,93,044/- and deleting Rs. 53,83,335/-.
  
  Final Decision:
  The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for deduction u/s 54F and dismissing the revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18.03.2013.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 656
  

  Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Tribunal deleted the penalty as it found that this was a case of bona fide clerical error while computing the tax liability in the process of filing its return of income. However, as the same was rectified by the respondent - assessee on its own before the assessment was finalized, penalty was not justified. The fact of the clerical error was also fortified by the fact that the advance tax had been paid by the respondent - assessee at the rate of 30% and not at the rate of 10%.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 655
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to demand notices u/s 28 of the Custom Act, 1962.
  
  The judgment addresses the challenge in a writ petition to demand notices dated 15-2-2013 under Annexure-2. The petitioner argues that the demand violates Section 28 of the Custom Act, 1962, as the Customs Department was required to issue a notice allowing the petitioner to file a show cause u/s 28(1)(a).
  
  The Senior Counsel for the Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax Department argues that Annexure-2 is not a demand u/s 28(1)(a). He states that if the assessee does not comply with paying the differential custom duty and interest, a further proceeding will be initiated by issuing a notice to file a show cause. The counsel contends that the petitioner's apprehension is misplaced, and the writ petition is premature.
  
  The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, deems it in the interest of justice to treat Annexure-2 as a notice u/s 28(1)(a) and grants the petitioner one month to file a show cause reply. The judgment clarifies that this decision does not determine the merits of the issues raised by both parties, leaving the Statutory Authority free to address the issues strictly in accordance with the law on their own merits.
  
  The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, and an urgent certified copy of the order is to be granted upon proper application.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 654
  
  The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2005-06 regarding the carry forward deficit claim of Rs. 2,01,38,019 by the Assessee, citing a previous court decision. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2013 (3) TMI 653
  

  Disallowance of entertainment expenses - Held that:- The expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - books of account have been audited - expenses were not in the nature of personal expenses - Decided in favor of assessee

  Disallowance of car maintenance expenses - Held that:- The expenses debited was mainly reimbursement of expenses on conveyance incurred by the employees - car repair and petrol expenses of the cars of the company - incurred for the purpose of business - Decided in favor of assessee

  Disallowance of tour and traveling expenses - Held that:- AO had not pointed out any specific defects on the vouchers and the disallowance was made on an adhoc basis - accounts were duly audited by the auditor under company’s act - Moreover, merely because in the opinion of the AO, the expenses are excessive, it cannot be a ground for disallowance - Decided in favoe of assessee

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 45