Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (6) 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 401 to 420 of 558 Records

• 2007 (6) TMI 159
  

  Purchase of immovable property by central govt. – stay petition by tenant against eviction order of property dismissed by civil court – held that impugned revision petition is dismissible as granting stay was discretionary – moreover assessee, occupying premised, hasn’t paid rent

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 158
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of whether interest on moneys borrowed for the period prior to the commencement of business can be allowed as a deduction from the interest u/s 57 of the Act while computing "Income from Other Sources" in respect of the interest received.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved appeals by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of interest earned prior to the commencement of business. The assessee, a Partnership Firm in the Real Estate business, had set off interest earned against expenses, leading to a dispute with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer considered the interest income as assessable under "income from other sources." The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the assessee. The Revenue contended that the interest earned before business commencement should be assessed separately. However, the Tribunal cited various Supreme Court decisions, including CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation, to support the assessee's position that interest earned during pre-production is on capital account. The Tribunal emphasized that interest earned from deposits made from borrowed funds is taxable income, not applicable to share application monies. The Tribunal's decision aligned with Supreme Court rulings in similar cases.
  
  The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles from Supreme Court judgments, including C.I.T. Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and C.I.T. Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation. The Tribunal correctly applied these precedents to conclude that the interest earned before business commencement should not be treated as income from other sources. The Revenue failed to provide additional evidence or challenge the Tribunal's decision effectively. Consequently, the High Court found no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the tax cases. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, resulting in the closure of the case without costs.

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 157
  

  AO treated difference in cost of construction of Kalyan Mandapam as unaccounted income from business – concurrent finding by Comm(A) & tribunal that no contribution by assessee made towards construction is based on valid material – No error or legal infirmity in impugned order

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 156
  

  Leasing finance – Lease agreement cancelled – lease rent accounted as income written off as bed debts - leased film rolls weren’t used by lessee, kept ready for use because of strike in film – Held that depreciation is allowed as assessee even though a passive user was deemed to be active user

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 155
  

  Unexplained foreign income assessed by AO as income from other sources – Comm(A) without considering the facts of nature of voluntary contributions granted exemption u/s 11 – tribunal is justified in remanding back the matter as no undue hardship will be caused to assessee

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 154
  

  Tax not paid against voluntary retirement payment – bonafide belief – assessee ignorant about introduction of section 35DDA w.e.f. 1.4.01 – same was paid as self assessment much before filing of return – held that interest on advance tax not payable.

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 153
  

  Order of dept. u/s 269UD(1) passed pursuant to any defective SCN is illegal – violation of natural justice as particulars relied upon by revenue never furnished to petitioner – hence order passed of purchase of impugned immovable property by central govt. on account of under valuation is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 152
  
  Issues: Disallowance of Cenvat credit on duty paid molasses used in the manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the appellants using molasses for manufacturing Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, an excisable product, and Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption, a non-excisable product. The Adjudicating Commissioner disallowed the Cenvat credit taken by the assessee and imposed a penalty. The appellants argued that they had reversed the credit for molasses used in producing Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption and should be eligible for credit under Rule 6(3)(a)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
  
  Upon examination, the Tribunal found that Rule 6(3)(a)(i) pertains to exempted goods falling within a specific category, which did not include Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption as it is not excisable. The main Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules allows manufacturers to take credit of duty on inputs for final products, defined as excisable goods. Since Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption is not excisable, it cannot be considered a final product, making the credit on molasses for its production inadmissible.
  
  As a result, the Tribunal set aside the demand for the entire Cenvat credit taken by the appellants and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for determining the credit taken in respect of non-excisable goods. The Original Authority was directed to allow a reasonable opportunity if the appellants had already reversed credit for inputs used in non-excisable goods. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the Stay Petition was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 151
  

  Notice for attachment of property which was purchased by the petitioner from the Director of a company – property has been purchased bonafidely, without knowing any liability of director on account of arrears of company – There was no transfer of business so attachment notice u/s 11 is set aside.

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 150
  

  Question arises (i) whether excise duty and sales tax form part of total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC and (ii) whether liability arises due to exchange fluctuation on purchase of plant and machinery is capital or revenue expenditure – Held (i) no (ii) revenue expenditure

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 149
  

  Capiatal or revenue expenditure – The amount paid by the assessee for taking land and building on lease for 20 years claimed as revenue expenditure but AO treated as capital expenditure – HC rejected the order of AO and consider the said amount as revenue expenditure

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 148
  

  Business Expenditure – Assessee is a financial corporation claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act on the basis of 40% of the on the total income computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A and allowed by the CIT(A) – HC also affirmed the order of CIT(A)

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 147
  

  Income from other sources – HC held that no separate deduction is possible in respect interest on borrowing under ‘Income from other sources’ on the ground of the assessee had already been debited the expenditure on account of interest to the profit and loss account

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 146
  

  Taxability u/s 68 of the Act – CIT(A) rejected the addition made by the AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the ground of the assessee had disclosed the funds introduced under VDI scheme and also paid tax on it – Tribunal and HC also upheld the order of CIT(A)

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 145
  

  Reassessment – AO filed an appeal to reopen the assessment holding that the unabsorbed income of the earlier years was to be set off before allowing deduction under Chapter VI-A but rejected by the tribunal on the ground of that there is no income had escaped assessment

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 144
  

  Penalty – AO imposed penalty on assessee u/s 271B of the Act for not providing any sufficient cause for belated filing of the audit report but rejected by the tribunal on the ground that there is reasonable cause for filing the report belatedly – Tribunal order affirmed by the HC

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 143
  

  Reassessment – Tribunal disallowed the reassessment proceeding initiated by the AO on the ground that there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, hence reassessment proceeding beyond four years not allowed and also upheld by HC

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 142
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 69D of the Income Tax Act regarding the addition of unexplained investment.
  2. Assessment of unaccounted investment in a building over a period of construction.
  3. Validity of the valuation of construction materials and cost of construction.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The first issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 69D of the Income Tax Act regarding the addition of unexplained investment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had restricted the addition under Sec.69D to Rs.9.00 lakhs after spreading it over the entire period of construction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also partly allowed the appeal by estimating the unaccounted investment in the building at Rs.9,86,067/- instead of the original addition of Rs.13,97,221/-. The Tribunal further modified the C.I.T.(A)'s order and restricted the addition to Rs.9 lakhs, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.
  
  Issue 2:
  The second issue involves the assessment of unaccounted investment in a building over a period of construction. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.13,97,221/- under the head "Unexplained Investment" under Section 69B of the Act. However, the C.I.T.(A) directed the Assessing Officer to spread the difference in cost of construction as unexplained investment u/s 69B over the period of construction in proportion to the investment made in the building during the construction period. The Tribunal, in turn, restricted the addition to Rs.9 lakhs after considering the entire construction period, thereby modifying the C.I.T.(A)'s order.
  
  Issue 3:
  The third issue pertains to the validity of the valuation of construction materials and the cost of construction. The Departmental Valuation Officer estimated the cost of construction at Rs.64,88,000/-, while the assessee admitted it at Rs.47,42,629/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.13,97,221/- under Section 69B as unexplained investment due to the difference in valuation. The Tribunal upheld the estimation of unaccounted investment at Rs.9 lakhs based on valid materials and evidence, emphasizing that valuation discrepancies are common among different valuers. The Tribunal also cited a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the acceptance of concurrent factual findings by lower authorities unless there are compelling reasons to interfere.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax case, stating that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. The decision was based on the lack of error or legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order, supported by valid evidence and the absence of compelling reasons for interference.

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 141
  

  TDS –Assessee unable to provide details regarding payment of TDS for the AY is in question and accordingly interest imposed by the Jt. Commissioner but after few days assessee providing details to AO - HC rejected the order of lower authority and remand matter to AO for considering afresh

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 140
  

  Unexplained investment – AO made addition in the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment in the construction of commercial complex on the basis of valuation of DVO report but rejected by the tribunal on the ground that amendment to section 142A would not apply in present case

  ---

1 ....171819202122232425........ 28