|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1510 Records
-
2015 (1) TMI 1256
Deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) - Held that:- Since there is continuous and substantial business transaction between PPPL and Shri Chhatrapati Press and considering the fact that the amount of ₹ 2 crores has been adjusted against the bills for printing labour charges, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. cited (2009 (9) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) the amount of ₹ 2 crores cannot be taxed u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1255
Disallowance of deduction of head office expenses allocated to Indian branches - whether entire amount should be allowed as per the provisions of Article 7(3) of the convention between the Government of India and the Government of UAE? - whether or not the disallowances set out under section 44C, or for that purpose- any artificial disallowances under the provisions of the Income Tax Act as applicable to a resident assessee, will come into play in computation of taxable income of the assessee under Article 7 also? - Held that:- Reverse discrimination, which would have resulted by not restricting the deductions in the light of the provisions of the Act for nonresidents assessees, was not permissible under the Indo UAE treaty prior to the protocol amendment in question, and such a reverse discrimination is permissible even now as specifically provided for in the said protocol amendment in the Indo UAE tax treaty itself. That is what is clearly discernable from the Indian tax treaty approach and is completely in harmony with the judicial precedents and the best practices in well developed international tax jurisdictions.
The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1996-97. This stand has now been specifically accepted in the protocol to the India UAE tax treaty. Just because there is a more specific and more unambiguous provisions post the protocol amendment, one cannot come to the conclusion that the judicial precedent, rendered by a coordinate bench, even without these specific and unambiguous expressions, cases to hold good. That will be stretching the things too far and will also be contrary to approach adopted by a very large number of judicial precedents set out earlier in this order.
Thus we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. The claim made by the assessee, by way of note to the income tax return, is rejected. As the assessee has incurred loss in this year, no part of head office expenses is allowable under section 44C. As the assessee has not anyway claimed any deduction in the income tax return in this respect, no disallowance is warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee
MAT applicability - whether the provisions of Section 115 JB will apply to the assessee? - Held that:- In the case of Krung Thai Bank (2010 (9) TMI 18 - ITAT, MUMBAI ), a coordinate bench of this Tribunal has, inter alia, held that the provisions of Section 115JB come into play only when the assessee is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI to the Act, but then since banking companies, under Section 211(2) of the Act, are not covered by this requirement, the provisions of Section115JB cannot be applied in the case of the banking companies. Of course, there is an amendment in Section 115JB which extends applicability of this section to the cases in which the accounts are not prepared in accordance with the Schedule VI requirements as well, but then this amendment is effective from 1st April 2013. The assessment year before us is 2002-03 and it remains unaffected by this legislative amendment. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned levy of MAT under section 115 JB. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1254
Confiscation of currency - attempt to smuggle the said currency out of India - Held that:- The whole story of illicit procurement of the foreign currency is far from convincing and appears a concocted story to mislead the investigation. Be that as it may, even going by the versions of the appellants, the foreign currency was brought into India in violation of the provisions of FEMA, 1999 and without declaration to the Customs and was sought to be taken out of India illicitly. Thus the illicit nature. of the transactions is manifest and amounts to ‘smuggling’ in and out foreign currency. Thus the tainted nature of the seized currency and the transaction’ is established beyond any doubt. Consequently, absolute confiscation of the seized foreign currency under Sections 113 (d) and (h) of the Customs Act is beyond any legal challenge and we hold accordingly. - Decided against the appellants.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1253
Over-valuation of FOB thereof to make undue claim of DEPB - export of watch - whether customs has jurisdiction to question FOB value declared in respect of export of past and live consignments and such declarations whether were correct or liable to be reduced by Customs. - whether cost construction method followed by Revenue to determine FOB value of the exports is proper or the method of valuation prescribed by Valuation Rules of 1988.
Held that:- FOB of the watches covered by past and live consignments were overvalued on the grounds hereinafter dealt elaborately. Only one-tenth of such values were declared to Dubai and Hong Kong Customs which remained unrebutted. -Revenue discharged its burden of proof making allegation of mis-declaration relying on evidence gathered from abroad and also basing on various other contributory factors as well as on the basis of remittance came from Hong Kong to Dubai and reduction of declared value before Hong Kong Customs upon detection by them. Added to that, claim of use of gold in making watch components received low weightage by test results of the Government recognized laboratory.
Contention of Revenue as to mis-declaration of FOB was established when the appellant M/s. Roche Watches changed its stand on cost of manufacture of watches filing three cost statement on three different dates, i.e., on 31-8-2004, 10-9-2004 and 24-9-2004. Repeated revision of such statements gives rise to the inference that the records of the appellants were not reliable and certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was false.
Misdeclaration of the value of export to Indian Customs was patent from remittance of lower consideration in respect of the goods exported by the appellant M/s. Roche Watches to Dubai and such goods exported therefrom to Hong Kong which remained unrebutted leading cogent evidence to the contrary by appellant. Therefore, even such factor contributes to the inference that higher export value came to India while the past export goods did not command such higher value corroborated by appellant’s own conduct of declaration of lower value upon detection by Hong Kong Customs.
Extended period of limitation - A case of overvaluation should not be sanctioned on the plea of time bar. Therefore, such a plea is rejected. It was also the contention of the appellant that there cannot be market enquiry beyond certain period prescribed by the Board’s circular. Present case is a case where value of the export is to be determined in accordance with Valuation Rules, 1988 and that has been directed by this order to be carried.
Misdeclaration of the value established - matter remanded back for the aspect of determination of valuation - Decided against the appellants.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1252
Interest charged under Section 234A and 234B - Held that:- CIT(A) in the impugned order has addressed both the issues of excessive calculation of charge of interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act, as well as by distinguishing the judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee, before dismissing the assessee's appeal. Before us, except for reiterating the contentions that the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was excessive and that the same two judicial decisions in the case of Prannoy Roy (2008 (9) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT) and Bharatbhai B Shah (2013 (10) TMI 1025 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) were applicable to the assessee's case, we find that the assessee has failed to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) either on facts in respect of the calculation of interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act or in law and on facts in respect of the judicial decisions cited by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order and therefore uphold the same - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1251
Sale of depreciable cars - AR submitted that the purchase of the cars were classified by the assessee as depreciable assets forming part of the block of assets - AO has treated the sale of depreciable cars as trading transaction and taxed the same as business profit accordingly - Held that:- It is the policy of the Assessee and decision of the management to treat a particular asset as part of the block of asset and vice versa. In the instant case the assessee has treated the cars as part of block of assets and sold subsequently during the year under consideration. The Assessee is at liberty to treat items which are trading asset as part of the depreciable asset also. In such cases the accounting entries in the books of accounts will be a very important and most relevant consideration for coming to a conclusion as to whether the sale of such item gives raise to Income from Business" or not. We find no defect in the accounting treatment of the assessee. Hence we reverse the order of the lower authorities and ground raised by assessee is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of sundry balance written off u/s. 36(ii) - Held that:- AR drew our attention to the paper book where the breakup of assessee's income for an amount of ₹ 2,87,472/- was shown pertaining to the sundry balance written off. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that assessee has duly shown its income in earlier year of the balance written off in the relevant year. Ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of Ld. AR. On the other hand the ld. DR relied on the order of authorities below. In view of the above discussion, we reverse the order of Authorities Below and this ground raised by assessee is allowed.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1250
Incorporation of the doctrine of double jeopardy - order of the Summary Court Martial - Held that:- Section 162 requires transmission of proceedings without delay to be forwarded to the competent officer, commanding the division or brigade in which the trial was held, or to the prescribed officer; and such officer, or the Chief of Army Staff, or any other empowered in this behalf by the Chief of Army Staff, may for reasons based on the merits of the case, but not merely technical grounds, set aside the proceedings or reduce the sentence to any other sentence which the court (martial) might have passed. This being a transmission of proceedings under Section 162, the Reviewing Authority's basis for insistence that a plea of "not guilty" ought to have been recorded after the summary of evidence, based upon the statement of evidence given by the Respondent therein, and subsequent setting aside of the consequences of the Court Martial presided by the Officer Commanding, cannot stand. On a demurrer, at the Summary of Evidence, the Respondent had only contested the Charge of his having extorted the coal hammer, stating in reply thereto that he had requested for one hammer which was to be returned at the end of winter, and that upon opening the bag, found two therein. There are no averments in his defence to be found in the Summary of Evidence, as to the charge of extorting high speed diesel. Furthermore, the Respondent did not make any Statement of Defence at the Summary Court Martial hearing itself, and neither produced any defence witnesses on his behalf nor cross examined either of the two prosecution witnesses therein. Faced with these inescapable facts, the Reviewing Authority could not have set aside the proceedings on such a technical ground - which Section 162 expressly prohibits - that a plea of "not guilty" should have been recorded under Army Rule 116(4) in respect of both charges of extortion, as the effect of the Respondent's plea of "guilty" was not fully understood by him. The Court Martial finding and sentence ought to have been left undisturbed by the Reviewing Authority, self-sufficiently valid as it was under Section 161 (1).
The Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder specifically contemplate that any person other than an officer subject to the Act may be dismissed or removed from service under Section 20 of the Act; and any such person may be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank under Section 20 read with Rule 17. The High Court has not failed to appreciate this dichotomy inasmuch as it has not precluded the taking of departmental action. The difference is that the departmental action is exactly what was taken and additionally what has now been permitted by the Impugned Judgment to be initiated.
It is with the above clarifications that we dispose of the Appeal by restoring the order of the Summary Court Martial, yet not prohibiting the Appellants to proceed in accordance with law.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1248
Additional depreciation u/s. 32(1) (iia) - Tribunal held that additional depreciation allowed u/s. 32(1) (iia) is a onetime benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions has been construed reasonably and purposive - Held that:- Following the judgment of the Division Bench in (The Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s. Rittal India Pvt.Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] wherein held additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(i)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and the provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. We are in full agreement with such observations made by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1247
Treatment to rental income - ‘income from other sources’ OR ‘income from house property’ - disallowance of deductions claimed u/s 24 on such rental income” - Held that:- Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Niagara Hotels & Builders (P) Limited [2015 (4) TMI 625 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] as well as the decision of Manpreet Singh (2015 (2) TMI 159 - ITAT DELHI ), which is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case, I hold that the amount in question received by the assessee from M/s. Dishnet Co. Limited for use of terrace of the assessee’s house property for installation of tower is chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property” as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to bring the said amount to tax in the hands of the assessee under the head “income from house property” and allow deduction under section 24 of the Act, as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1246
Claim u/s 57(iii) denied - CIT(A) made disallowance of interst claimed as deduction u/s 57(iii) against interest income disclosed under the head “Income from other Source” - Held that:- In the case of the assessee, we are of the opinion that there is a direct nexus between the money raised and utilized and the expenses by way of interest is also not of capital nature. During the instant year the assessee earned interest income of ₹ 15,99,664/- and claimed deduction of interest paid on borrowings to the tune of ₹ 3,97,244/- u/s 57(iii) of the Act. We in agreement with the submissions of the ld AR of the assessee that the interest paid constitute the input cost of the fund and therefore has to be reduced while determining the income from other sources which is the spirit of the provision of section 57 (iii) of the Act . In view of these facts, we reverse the order of CIT(A) by allowing the appeal of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1245
Deduction towards electric power - whether the same is incurred in the course of business - Held that:- As the assessee has already been allowed depreciation on the amount of electric power capitalized and no case for allowing the same as revenue expenditure could be made before us, and accordingly, the ground of the assessee is dismissed. - Decided against assessee
Disallowance 50% traveling expenses - Held that:- Disallowance was made out of foreign travelling expenses, but the assessee could not file complete details such as, person who has travelled, his designation and purpose of visit etc. The assessee has only filed the bills in support of the tickets purchased for foreign travelling. In these facts, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against assessee
Disallowance towards interest paid to ABN Ambro Bank Ltd - Held that:- No evidence in support of the claim of the assessee could be filed by the assessee before us.- Decided against assessee
Disallowance of garden expenses - Held that:- We find that the garden expenses were incurred by the assessee for the business purpose and copies of bills were also produced before the AO and the CIT(A), and therefore, there is no case for disallowance of 20% of the total garden expenses claimed by the assessee. - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of consultancy charges - Held that:- . We find that the CIT(A) has given a finding that the amount of ₹ 2,92,815/- is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee could not establish that the promotional charges were paid for the business run by the assessee-company.The expenses incurred even though genuine could not be allowed till it is proved that the same was incurred for the business purpose only - Decided against assessee
Addition on estimation of profit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that the assessee has declared sales of ₹ 50.57 lakhs during the year as against ₹ 1023.40 lakhs in the immediately preceding assessment year. The assessee has declared loss in the current year, as against GP rate of 9.05% in the immediately preceding assessment year. No cogent defect in the account books of the assessee could be pointed out by the department except that the assessee could not maintain day-to-day consumption register of the items of raw-material, which are stated to be one thousand in number. The fact that the assessee has to close down its business after sometime, could not be controverted by the Revenue. We find that the CIT(A) has passed well reasoned order on this issue and held that in the books of the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected and has deleted the addition. There being no mistake in the order of the CIT(A), the same is confirmed - Decided against revenue
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - certain disallowances - Held that:- As all the material facts necessary for the assessment of the case of the assessee were filed along with return of income. The assessee has filed explanation in this regard, which seems to be bona fide. It seems that this is a case of honest difference of opinion between the assessee and the Revenue with regard to allowability of certain expenses claimed by the assessee. Merely because certain expenses were capitalized and/or certain disallowances were made, it cannot be said that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by following the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ). There being no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in this case, we confirm his order and the ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.- Decided against revenue
-
2015 (1) TMI 1243
Levy of penalty imposed u/s 158 BFA(2) - CIT(A) deleted the penalty levy - Held that:- Return of income was not filed within due date prescribed u/s 139(1) and in the meanwhile since there was a search, long term capital gain was rightly assessed as undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Act. However, to hold that the assessee has concealed particulars of income and penalty u/s 158BFA(2) is to imposed on facts of this case is unjustified. The penalty u/s 158BFA is not automatic and the assessee did not have any intention to conceal the said capital gain for the purpose of taxation. The reason for us to hold that the assessee did have any intention to conceal the capital gains is evident from the undisputed fact that the investment of the impugned shares were duly reflected in the financial statement of the assessee in the year of purchase and the sale consideration/gain received during the A.Y. 1999-2000 was deposited in the Bank account which was duly disclosed to the Income Tax Department. Further, the unaudited P&L account and balance sheet which were seized in the course of search contained the recording of the transaction of the sale of the shares and resulting capital gains.
Further, whether long term capital gains can be treated as “undisclosed income” is debatable issue. The Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. H.B. Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 434 - Delhi High Court ) that the issue can be said to be debatable when substantial question of law has been admitted and when quantum proceeding is debatable, the penalty cannot be imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1242
Entitlement to deduction under Section 80IC - ITAT allowed the claim treating the transport and interest subsidy as part of the business profit - Held that:- The point raised before the learned Tribunal is really covered by the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –Versus-Meghalaya Steels Ltd (2013 (7) TMI 175 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT ) wherein it was held, that where there was a direct nexus between the subsidies, on the one hand, and the profits and gains derived by, or derived from, the industrial undertakings concerned the assessee was entitled to claim deduction either under Section 80-IB or under Section 80-IC on the transport subsidy, interest subsidy, power subsidy and insurance subsidy.
We are in full agreement with the views expressed by the Guwahati High Court and of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is unexceptionable.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1241
Disallowance of the amount being employees’ contribution to PF Account / ESI Contribution - Held that:- Where any sum received by the assessee from any of its employees as contribution to PF and/or ESI was not credited by the assessee to employees’ accounts in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per Explanation to sec. 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction thereof. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed on this issue and that of the Assessing officer is restored. - Decided against assessee.
Addition u/s. 2(22)(e) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- We find that during the first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) got admitted the ledger account statements and thereafter, he came to the conclusion that the said amount received were credited on the last date of the financial year and represented salary payments made on behalf of the company on account of commercial expediency. These ledger statements were not filed before the Assessing officer and the CIT(A) has also not called for remand report from the Assessing officer. In our opinion, it is proper to remit the issue to the file of the Assessing officer for fresh consideration in the light of the material produced before the CIT(A) on this issue as this was not placed before the Assessing officer for his comments. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1240
Revision u/s 263 - in genuineness of the incidence of capital gains - Held that:- CIT other than saying that the assessment whether the Assessing Officer really probed the genuineness of the incidence of capital gains cannot make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In fact, the ld. CIT has not pointed out what is the exact error. Just because the query nor the answer is reflected in the assessment order, it would not lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for any interference or revision.
CIT having examined and verified the transactions himself and having not pointed out any error in the merits or the order of the Assessing Officer or the view taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be possible to invoke his powers under section 263, just because the view as desired by the ld. CIT has not been taken by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed under section 263 by the ld. CIT is unsustainable and consequently quash the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1239
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that invocation of rule 8D without recording objective satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is not proper and we accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and delete the addition made in this regard. Moreover, the investment was made in the case of subsidiary companies, therefore, in those cases disallowance under section 1A(2) of the Act cannot be worked out unless and until it is established that certain expenditures are incurred by the assessee in these investments. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1238
Denial of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Held that:- We hold that the pre-amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act are to be applied to the project undertaken by the assessee, where the approval for the commencement of construction was given before 01.04.2005. As per the additional evidence furnished by the assessee which has been admitted by us, the Commencement Certificate was issued by the Grampanchayat on 05.02.2003 i.e. approved before 01.04.2004 and construction had to be completed on or before 31.03.2008. The assessee has filed the Completion Certificate dated 21.07.2006 at pages 66 and 67 of the Paper Book under which, it has been certified that the said project has been completed as on the date of certificate i.e. within stipulated date provided under the Act. The project having been approved by the competent authority and having been completed by the assessee in line with the approval given by the competent authority, merely because the commercial area of the said project was about 4000 sq. ft., does not dis-entitles the assessee from the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the said deduction to the assessee.
We find merit in the claim of the assessee that it had commenced construction only after obtaining approval from the local authority, hence, the assessee is eligible to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Further, merely because in the audit report relating to assessment year 2006-07, the year of project was mentioned as first year, does not change the factum that the assessee had already claimed the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.The assessee had in Form No.10CCB filed for assessment year 2005- 06 has also mentioned that the year of start of project was first year.In view thereof, there is no merit in denial of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- We find merit in the plea of the assessee that where a person is eligible to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, then such deduction is allowable on the profits of the business which have been computed in the hands of the assessee. In the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer while computing the profits of the business, had made certain additions on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source.
The said addition has been added to the profits declared by the assessee and consequently, the profits of the business have increased.The said increased profits are the eligible profits of the business. Since the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act as held by us in the paras hereinabove on its profits from the business, such deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act is also allowable on the enhanced profits of the business which are the profits eligible for the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee in this regard.- Decided in favour of assessee
Additional income offered pursuant to the survey proceedings - enhancement of income - Held that:- The assessee had offered an expenditure of ₹ 3,73,000/- as an additional income being unaccounted expenditure and the said additional income was added in the hands of the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly admitted that the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on such additional income - Decided against assessee.
Addition made on account of extra work done - Assessing Officer had estimated the profits @ 8% of third party receipts - Held that:- The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the said receipts on account of extra work were part of its project and were not to be taxed separately. Even if the said income was taxed in the hands of the assessee, then the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on such enhanced profits. We direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on such enhancement of profits - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1237
Denial of Cenvat credit - service tax paid on the software purchased from a consultant who is registered himself under the category of Management Consultant and has discharged service tax on the said transaction - Held that:- In the absence of any dispute about the payment of tax by the appellant to the service provider and deposit of the same by the service provider to the State Exchequer, denial of credit on the sole reason that it was shown as IT service in the appellant’s record is not justifiable. Accordingly set aside the denial of the same.
Further, a part of the credit of service tax paid by the auditors at the time of filing of income tax returns of the appellants stands denied to them on the ground that the same is not covered by the definition of input service. As find that filing of income tax returns by the appellants are in connection with their business and as such would be covered by the definition of Input service. The same admittedly has a nexus with the running of business and the service tax paid by the auditors in respect of service of filing IT returns would be available as credit to them. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1236
Grant from the Government - whether receipts of the assessee cannot be treated as income u/s 2 (24) - Held that:- We are of the considered view that since the above Grants or receipts are received by the assessee either from the government or any other agency for a particular purpose and assessee has no independent right over it, it would not partake the character of income u/s 2 (24) of the Act. Though, this argument was not raised by the assessee before the lower authorities and the assessee had been claiming deduction u/s 80P (2) of the Act or exemption u/s 11 of the Act, but the ground or argument raised before us is plausible and legal.
In the instant case as the assessee has no independent right to use the grant in a manner in which it likes. It has to be utilized for a particular purpose in terms of grants. Since these arguments are raised first time before the Tribunal, we are of the view that this aspect should be examined by the Assessing Officer while Assessing the income of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) & restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to the reexamine the claim of the assessee in the light of the new argument. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1235
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - difference in Long term Capital gains between the revised return and the original return - Held that:- In the instant case, the revised return of income was filed within the time prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice. Hence the mistake in the Long term Capital gain could not have come to the notice of the AO at that point of time, meaning thereby, it should be construed that the assessee has declared the higher amount of Long term capital gain voluntarily upon its detection. Hence, we are unable to agree with the view of the tax authorities that the revised return of income was not voluntary one, but the assessee was constrined to enhance the Long term capital gain only upon the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the assessing officer to delete the penalty levied on the enhanced Capital gain amount. - Decided in favour of assessee.
With regard to the addition of ₹ 1,40,373/- made in the assessment order, we notice that the assessee has omitted to declare the same in the revised return of income also and no convincing explanation was given for the same. Hence we confirm the penalty levied on the above said amount.
With regard to the balance amount, we have already noticed that the AO has failed to give the details of the same. Hence we restore the same to his file with the direction to reconsider the same after giving necessary details to the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
