|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1477 Records
-
2016 (4) TMI 1098
Disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s 54 - two flats situated on different storey - Held that:- There is nothing in these sections, which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use.We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. Thus we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A) and allow deduction claimed U/s 54 of the Act by the assessee on two flats even on different storey. See Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Gita Duggal [2013 (3) TMI 101 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of indexed cost of improvement - Held that:- CIT(A) not allowed the expenses claimed against the cost of acquisition from the total sale consideration on the ground that the evidence filed by the assessee are not reliable but neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld CIT(A) has verified the evidence, when the burden has been shifted by the assessee on the revenue on the basis of exemption claimed by the assessee where the particulars of civil engineer as well as name and address of the labourer have been given. The Assessing Officer has not issued any query letter to confirm the expenses as genuine. He simply discarded the evidence filed by the assessee, which is not permitted under the law. Even this indexed cost on boundary wall is not allowed by the lower authorities then the investment in two flats is about ₹ 42,92,921/-. The assessee invested much more than the capital gain calculated by the Assessing Officer, therefore, this addition is not called for. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (4) TMI 1097
Penalty under section 271C - Non deduction of TDS u/s 195 - DTAA between India–U.S.A. - Held that:- When the C.A. issued a certificate opining that there is no requirement for deduction of tax at source, assessee under a bonafide belief that withholding of tax is not required did not deduct tax at source on the remittances made. Though, this fact was brought to the notice of the Departmental Authorities in course of the penalty proceedings but due weightage has not been given to such contention of the assessee. In our view, the explanation submitted by the assessee is a valid explanation and cannot be brushed aside with some general observations. Only because the assessee before the Tribunal had accepted her liability for deduction of tax at source, cannot be the sole basis for imposition of penalty completely ignoring the primary and fundamental reason shown by the assessee for failure to deduct such tax. Proceedings under sections 201 and 271C, are two independent and separate proceedings.
While imposing penalty, the authority concerned is duty bound to examine assessee’s explanation to find out whether there was reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source. As is evident, the assessee being advised by a professional well acquainted with provisions of the Act had not deducted tax at source. Therefore, no malafide intention can be imputed to the assessee for failure to deduct tax. More so, when the issue whether tax was required to be deducted at source, on payments to a non–resident for services rendered is a complex and debatable issue requiring interpretation of statutory provisions vis–a–vis relevant DTAA between the countries. Therefore, in our considered opinion, failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source was due to a reasonable cause. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative also support this view. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271C. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1096
Addition of liquidated damage - Held that:- Liquidated damages paid for delay in delivery of materials is deductible expenditure in the year in which the liability to pay arises as per the agreement between the customers. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1095
Claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) denied - Held that:- The assessee has clearly demonstrated through its loan disbursed statement that during A.Y. 2008-09, it had disbursed 89.10% of its total loan disbursed towards agricultural and allied activities. Similarly, during A.Y. 2009- 10, the disbursement towards these activities was to the tune of 86.41%. Hence, we hereby confirm the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for both the years - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1094
Cash payment not supported by voucher - Held that:- The books of accounts were incorrectly rejected as it is not a case where it can be held that the books of account was incorrect or incomplete or correct profits could not be deduced. On the contrary, we find that completed audited books of accounts were produced before the AO, which were duly examined and such book of accounts have not been shown to have been maintained from where correct profits could not be deduced, thus vitiating the entire action of the AO and CIT(A) for rejecting the books of account. Further, there is no basis for applying rate of profit at 3% which is an ad hoc rate estimated by AO, so it falls particularly here we would like to state that the assessee has been incurring losses since start of production and the year in question is the first year where the results have been positive. The assessee falls under preview of various laws of the country such as Excise, Sales Tax, Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance and regular inspections/scrutiny’s by these Government departments is carried out. Accordingly, the results declared by the assessee are accepted and addition made including addition on account of exchange fluctuation in excess of the declared profit are deleted.
Addition u/s 41(1) - Held that:- We notice that there is a fundamental misconception on the facts as appreciated by the AO and CIT(A). It is noticed that during the instant year, the assessee had shown in the beginning of the year unsecure loan of ₹ 8,04,75,496/- (Page 55 of the PB) which was reduced to ₹ 7,35,30,351/- on account of exchange fluctuation gain of ₹ 69,45,145/- which has been declared as part of exchange gain (Page 104 of PB). Further, there was a credit balance of M/s SPM at the beginning of the year of ₹ 59,20,969/- which was reduced to ₹ 50,09,447/- (Page 57 of PB). It was this balance which was confirmed at US $ 125,173.60 thus the balance of US $ 125,173.60 had nothing to do with the unsecured loan of ₹ 7,35,30,351/-. There is neither a payment towards the loan, nor there was cessation or remission of the liability of the loan. Even the AO has proceeded merely on conjecture to hold that such liability is the income of the assessee. There is no evidence to suggest that liability was squared up or paid. In the absence of any evidence to come to such impugned conclusion, the addition is arbitrary and has to go. Therefore, we order deletion of the addition
-
2016 (4) TMI 1093
Addition on unexplained jewellery u/s 69A - Held that:- In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the AO nowhere stated that the jewellery found during the course of search was more than what was declared by the assessee in the regular wealth tax return furnished much earlier to the search. As regards to the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) by presuming that the assessee might have incurred certain expenses for making the jewellery is concerned, it is noticed that nothing is brought on record to substantiate that all the jewellery was got remade during the year under consideration. In this regard, the explanation of the assessee was that the source of remaking in the earlier years was from household withdrawals. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition only on the basis of presumption which is not tenable particularly when no evidence was brought on record to disprove this contention of the assessee that the remaking charges were incurred out of household withdrawals made from time to time in earlier years. We, therefore, do not see any justification on the part of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition which was made on the basis of surmises and conjecture. Accordingly, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (4) TMI 1092
Disallowance under sec. 40A(2)(b) - whether assessee had unreasonably paid higher amount regarding purchase of guar gum from related parties? - Held that:- Sec. 40A(2)(a) provides that where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub-section, and the Assessing Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction. We find that no material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to show that on the date of purchases made by the assessee from the sister concern, the market price of the goods was lower than the amount paid by the assessee to its sister concerns. In absence of the same, we find that the addition made has righty deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and calls no interference from us. - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of trading loss - Held that:- No material was brought on record by the Departmental Representative to controvert the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has accepted the profit of ₹ 7,96,81,577/- in respect of manufacturing activity and at the same time, has disallowed loss in respect of traded goods without bringing on record any material. All the purchases & sales were recorded in terms of quantity and value and were supported by bills and vouchers and no adverse material or evidence was noticed to show that the assessee firm has inflated any sales or purchases. Further, all the related parties, covered under sec. 40A(2)(b) are assessed to tax at the maximum rate of tax as that of assessee and as such the very presumption for diversion of income is erroneous and as such the addition made by working trading loss at ₹ 2,80,09,637/- is erroneous and is deleted. Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Decided against revenue
Deduction under sec. 80IA without setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of eligible unit - Held that:- The disallowance of deduction under sec. 80IA was made by the Assessing Officer in order to keep the issue alive as the department did not accept the order of the Tribunal and has filed appeal there against in the High Court. She admitted that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10.)- Decided against revenue
-
2016 (4) TMI 1091
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether interest income from investments qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
3. Application of the doctrine of mutuality to tax exemption on interest income.
4. Consistency in judicial decisions on the treatment of interest income.
Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Assessing Officer had disallowed interest income claimed as exemption by the assessee under this section. The issue revolved around whether the income derived from carrying on the business of banking for providing credit facilities to members was eligible for deduction under the Act.
Issue 2: Qualification of Interest Income for Deduction:
The core dispute was whether interest income earned from investments made in securities and term deposits out of surplus funds by a Co-operative Society should be considered as income from business or from other sources. The Assessing Officer contended that such income was chargeable to tax under Section 56 of the Act. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on previous judgments and the nature of the investments made by the assessee.
Issue 3: Application of Doctrine of Mutuality:
The Revenue relied on a recent judgment of the Apex Court to argue that interest income from fixed deposits placed by the club with banks did not qualify for tax exemption due to the doctrine of mutuality. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case by emphasizing that the interest income in question was earned by a Co-operative Society from non-compulsory investments, which, according to previous decisions and the principle of consistency, qualified for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Issue 4: Consistency in Judicial Decisions:
The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including those by the jurisdictional High Court, to establish a consistent interpretation regarding the treatment of interest income earned by Co-operative Societies. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following precedent and ensuring uniformity in applying tax laws. By relying on past judgments and distinguishing relevant cases, the Tribunal upheld the allowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for the interest income in question.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to allow the deduction of interest income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for both assessment years. The judgment emphasized the significance of consistent judicial interpretation, precedent, and the specific nature of the investments made by the Co-operative Society in determining the eligibility for tax exemption.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1090
Penalty u/s 271D - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the father of the assessee and his aunti and cousin have entered into an agreement with one Nathu Lal for sale of land and on account of sale of land, a sum of ₹ 19,50,000/- was received in cash. It is also an admitted fact that the amount of ₹ 19.50 lakhs was deposited by the assessee in his bank account as the father of the assessee was not having the PAN. Moreover, the said amount was not accepted by the banker of the father. The amount was thereafter deposited in the bank account on 16.12.2008 by the assessee.
Immediately after depositing the amount, the amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the father of the assessee Shri Niranjan Lal Sharma and the remaining amount was deposited by the assessee through account payee cheque in the accounts of Smt. Vinita Devi W/o late Shri Mahesh Kumar and Shri Ashish Sharma son of late Shri Mahesh Kumar. The assessee has also filed an affidavit with the Assessing Officer. The father of the assessee appellant has also declared sale transaction in his Income Tax return for A.Y. 2009-10. In our view, the assessee has given a reasonable cause for receiving the amount in his account and thereafter subsequently transferred the said amount to the account of his father and also the account of aunti Smt. Vinita Sharma and in the account of Shri Ashish Sharma, cousin of the assessee. In our view, since the assessee has given a reasonable cause for not complying with the provisions of section 271D, and the reasonable cause given by the assessee is plausible, in view thereof we have no hesitation to uphold the order passed by ld. CIT (A) by virtue of which the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty under section 271D. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (4) TMI 1089
Disallowance of carriage Inward expenditure - Held that:- Assessing Officer was not correct in disallowing 10% of such expenditure. We have gone through the submissions of the assessee and orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure on adhoc basis without pointing out any specific instances, where supporting bills are not available. On perusal of financial statement filed by the assessee, we find that the expenditure claimed is very less when compared to related turnover. The assessee is into the business of trading in fertilizers which requires lot of carriage inward expenditure, as the goods are bulky and which needs to be transported to various places. Considering the nature and size of business, we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is at higher side. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee requested for scale down the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand did not object for the proposal. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow 5% of carriage inward expenditure. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow 5% of expenditure under the head carriage inwards.
Disallowance of depreciation on motor cycles - Held that:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce bills in support of the capital expenditure. The assessee’s contention is that it has bills in support of the fixed assets, however could not produce before the Assessing Officer by oversight. The CIT(A) held that even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee could not furnish bills in support of the expenditure. Even before us, the facts remained same. The assessee could not furnish any bills in support of the expenditure claimed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A)
-
2016 (4) TMI 1088
Claim of exemption u/s 54F - denial of claim as on the date of sale, the assessee owned more than one residential house and as per section 54F(1)(ii&iii) of the Act the assessee is not eligible for exemption - Held that:- On perusal of the confirmation letter issued by the builder, we find that the confirmation letter dated 20.2.2011 issued by the builder states that the assessee has paid advance towards purchase of two residential flats. The subsequent confirmation letter dated 11.11.2011 issued by the builder clearly states that he had carried out additional works of ₹ 12,66,515/- for two flat nos. 401 & 502 in Sri Rama Acropolis apartments, Bangalore.
In the said confirmation letter, the builder stated that he has incurred an amount of ₹ 8,23,000/- for flat no.401 & ₹ 4,43,515/- for flat no.502 and the amount spent was appropriated out of the amount paid by the assessee on 20.7.2009 and 24.7.2009. On further verification of the ledger extract submitted by the builder, it was noticed that the assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 29 lakhs towards flat no.401 and ₹ 25 lakhs towards flat no.502. As per said ledger accounts, the total cost including registration and additional works incurred for the flat is ₹ 29 lakhs for flat no.401 & ₹ 25 lakhs for flat no.502. As against this, the assessee has claimed exemption of ₹ 35 lakhs for flat no.401 & ₹ 29 lakhs for flat no.502. The additional amount of ₹ 10 lakhs stated to be incurred towards additional work for flat no.401 & 502 was not supported by any evidence and also proof of payment. The assessee could not able to substantiate the claim with any documentary evidences. The confirmation letter issued by the builder dated 20.2.2011 only speaks about advances. The subsequent confirmation letter issued by the builder dated 11.11.2011 clearly stated the additional works carried out for the two flats and as per the confirmation letter a sum of ₹ 12,66,515/- only has been incurred and this additional amount of ₹ 10 lakhs claimed by the assessee is not mentioned. The CIT(A) considering the details furnished by the assessee, denied the benefit of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee
-
2016 (4) TMI 1087
Interest on sundry debtors - Held that:- The debtor went into liquidation and the matter is pending before the BIFR. On further verification of the details submitted by the assessee, we find that the lenders have taken the possession of the assets of the company and given notice for auction. Under these circumstances, the A.O. was incorrect in charging interest on the outstanding debtor balance, when recovery of principal is in doubtful. The Assessing Officer, simply estimated the interest on the outstanding debtor balance based on the assessee own admission for the previous financial year.
We do not see any merit in the contention of the Assessing Officer for the reason that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in the chair of the businessman and direct him to do business in a particular fashion. The outstanding amount due from the debtor is on account of trading liability. It is not a case of the Assessing Officer that the outstanding loan amount is a stock in trade of assessee and assessee is in the business of money lending to charge interest on the outstanding balance by following the mercantile system of accounting. Though, assessee charged interest for the last financial year, he explained the reasons for not charging the interest for the current financial year under consideration. From the perusal of the facts, it appears that the reasons given by the assessee appears to be reasonable. Therefore, we are of the opinion that charging interest on trade debtors is not correct. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1086
Applicability of provisions of section 44AF - Held that:- Total turnover is shown at ₹ 11,31,029/- which is not doubted by the lower authorities at any stage and the purchases of the assessee are explained and the profits of ₹ 2,22,214/- shown by the assessee is much higher than the profit @ 5% of turnover of ₹ 11,31,029/- calculated at ₹ 56,551/-, we are of the view that assessee’s disclosed income u/s 44AF of the Act at ₹ 2,22,214/- should have been accepted by the Revenue. Further as per second proviso to section 44AF assessee is also eligible for claiming deduction on salary and interest paid to its partners and in the case of assessee interest of ₹ 1,69,358/- and salary of ₹ 50,000/- has been shown to working partners and, therefore, assessee has rightly filed its return of income at NIL. We, therefore, are of the view that assessee is covered under the provisions of section 44AF of the Act and no addition was called for disallowance of purchases at ₹ 3,42,757/- and sustaining of disallowance on expenses @ 10% of ₹ 2,42,086/-, the same are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (4) TMI 1085
Penalty u/s 271D - Held that:- The fact that ₹ 15,00,000/- was received from Sri.K.C.Basheer on behalf of the assessee is undisputed, although the receipt of the amount or its utilisation are not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee. Initially in his letter dated 13.12.2010, Sri.K.C.Basheer himself had confirmed that the payment was by way of a loan. It was on that basis the assessee was issued notice dated 24.02.2011. In his reply to the said notice the assessee had stated that he had not accepted any loan or deposit from anybody and that ₹ 15,00,000/- received on his behalf was towards advance for the property that was intended to be sold. It was along with that reply that he enclosed a clarification from Sri.K.C. Basheer to the effect that the amount paid was towards advance as contended by the assessee. The story that payment made was towards the advance was disbelieved by the Tribunal and the reasons thereof have been given by the Tribunal.
Such being the case, we are clearly of the view that the transaction was correctly taken as a loan and if so the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 271D are attracted to the case. - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1084
Appeal admitted on the substantial question of law at question no.(ii) hereinabove.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders of the CIT(A) in regard to the liability on account of warranties?
-
2016 (4) TMI 1083
Refusal of adjournment - breach of the principle of natural justice - Held that:- In the present case, it is not disputed that the matter was posted on 7.7.2015. It is also not disputed that prior to such date the appellant had only sought two adjournments. On account of some unavoidable reasons of the death in the family of the counsel of the appellant, the concerned counsel was unable to represent the appellant on the relevant date. The fact that there was a death in the family of the counsel of the appellant is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. In such circumstances, considering that the appellant are not unnecessarily delaying the matter and as on the relevant date there was justifiable reason which prevented the counsel for the appellant to remain present before the learned Tribunal, we find that the learned Tribunal was not justified to refuse an adjournment.
Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the learned Tribunal could have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant for the subsequent date. Having failed to grant a short adjournment has resulted in passing the impugned order in breach of the principle of natural justice which calls for the interference of this Court. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1082
Mode of offering capital gains for tax on receipt basis - Held that:- In this case the amount of ₹ 20 crores is neither received nor it has accrued to the respondent-assessee during the subject assessment year. We are informed that for the subsequent assessment year (save Assessment Year 2007-08 for which there is no deferred consideration on application of formula), the Assessee has offered to tax the amounts which have been received on the application of formula provided in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 pertaining to the transfer of shares.
The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-07 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the respondent-assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive ₹ 20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year.
In the above view there could be no occasion to bring the maximum amount of ₹ 20 crores, which could be received as deferred consideration to tax in the subject assessment year as it had not accrued to the respondent-assessee.We find that both the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have in view of the clear clauses of agreement dated 25th January, 2006 have in the facts of the present case correctly held that the respondent-assessee and the co-owners of the shares did not have a right to receive ₹ 20 crores in the subject assessment year. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (4) TMI 1081
Addition to the income of the assessee-firm on account of purchases made - Held that:- It cannot be said that the transactions of purchases of ₹ 35,79,224/- as undertaken by the assessee-firm from M/s. Divya Fabric and M/s. N M Corporation are liable to be added to the income of the assessee-firm to fasten liability of taxation and we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) erred in confirming and sustaining the addition of ₹ 35,79,224/- to the income of the assessee-firm on account of purchases made by the assessee-firm from M/s Divya Fabrics and M/s N M Corporation as made by the AO in the assessment order and we delete the additions of ₹ 35,79,224/- made by the A.O. and as confirmed /sustained by the CIT(A) to the income of the assessee-firm.
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- We have observed that the current assessment year is 2006-07 and hence Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules,1962 is not applicable , which is held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) to be applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards. We have observed that the assessee-firm has worked the disallowance based upon the total expenditure claimed of ₹ 11,09,724/, after excluding the voluntary disallowances made by the assessee-firm of sales promotion of ₹ 5,42,800/-, STT of ₹ 6,036/- and necessary adjustment for depreciation as debited in P & L A/c vis-à-vis allowance as per the Act and then worked out the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act which is based upon the proportion of the exempt income to the total income as per audited financial statement, which in our considered view, is a reasonable basis as total expenses claimed by the assessee-firm as revenue expenditure was to the tune of ₹ 11,09,724/- in the return of income filed with the Revenue and not ₹ 16,58,665/- as contended by the authorities below , which amount of ₹ 11,09,724/- was arrived at after the disallowance voluntarily made by the assessee-firm as set out above. Thus, we hold that disallowance of ₹ 1,27,914/- as worked out by the assessee-firm u/s. 14A of the Act is quite reasonable and is correct disallowance worked out by the assessee-firm . The orders of the CIT(A) upholding the addition to income of the assessee-firm by way of further disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of ₹ 86,917/- in addition to the disallowance of ₹ 1,27,914/- u/s 14A of the Act as offered by the assessee-firm of its own is not justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case and our discussions and reasoning as set out above and the addition of ₹ 86,917/- to the income of the assessee-firm as confirmed/sustained by the CIT(A) is hereby ordered to be deleted.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1080
Grant of interest u/s.244A - Held that:- The assessee has legitimate right to claim interest on refund provided the assessee submits correct TDS certificate within the time and eligible for interest on refund. It is the duty of the assessee in case of manual certificate in form 16A to verify and submit to the Income Tax Department and rectify the defects at the earliest. Such delay shall not be a hindrance to the Department for granting refund. The provisions of section 244A(2) of the Act should be considered at the time of granting interest. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has examined the issue and called for the explanations and verified the provisions with the judicial decisions viz-a-viz explanations of the assessee and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax in setting aside the rectification order of Assessing Officer for verification and examine on provisions applicable for granting interest. We, therefore do not interfere with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax and uphold the same. - Decided against assessee
-
2016 (4) TMI 1079
Waiver of pre-deposit - Violation of the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant neither filed stay application nor made pre-deposit - Demand alongwith interest and penalty confirmed on the ground that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 - Appellant contended that it satisfied all the conditions of Notification No. 18/2009 except that it did not file EXP-2 return every six months of the financial year within 15 days of the completion of the said six months which is only a procedural requirement. Therefore the benefit of notification should not have been denied.
Held that:- it is evident that the said condition is a condition of exemption notification and therefore non-fulfilment thereof prima facie disentitles the appellant to the benefit of the said notification. In addition non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F is prima facie a valid ground for rejection of the appellant’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, prima facie, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly we order pre-deposit of entire impugned service tax liability along with interest within four weeks. - Waiver not granted
............
|
9911796707
