|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 1621 Records
-
2016 (5) TMI 1184
Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on a plot/housing project - Held that:- Ownership of the plot is not necessary for availing the claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. See Radhe Developers case [2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1183
Transfer pricing adjustment - inclusion of ICRA as comparable - Held that:- If the TPO himself had included ICRA as a comparable in earlier and subsequent years there was no justification for not including the same for the year under consideration on the ground that it had suffered losses. As stated earlier, if the results of ICRA are considered for TP purposes, the case will fall within the range of ± 5% and the adjustment made by the TPO would not survive. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we hold that while finalising the TP adjustment ICRA should have been included as a comparable and that the TPO was not justified in making the adjustment of ₹ 63.881akhs.Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1182
Disallowance of additional depreciation on tooling cost recovered from the customers - Held that:- From the facts it is quite clear that the assessee first adds the amount of tools and dyes to its capital assets and claims the depreciation on the same. At the time when it gets reimbursed for the same, the same is reduced from the opening balance. This way, the assessee is getting additional benefit on account of depreciation claimed on the tools and dyes which have been reimbursed by the clients to it by claiming additional depreciation on the same - Decided against assessee
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on loans raised for business purposes - Held that:- In consonance with the order of the I.T.A.T. in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment year and also taking into consideration the fact that the bank rate in this year is around 15.7%, we hereby hold 16% rate of interest to be reasonable, as these are unsecured loans and are always available at a rate higher than the bank rates. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on alleged interest free advance ignoring the facts that the said advance was given out of own funds - Held that:- 5. Once, it is established that for a given situation, the assessee has not borrowed any money, for that matter, putting it reverse, the assessee has used his owned funds or interest free funds, there is no question of proving that the funds so taken from owned or interest free funds are used for business purposes. There being no claim of any interest expenditure, no question of deduction to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act arises. Once it is presumed that the lending as in the present case is made out of owned funds, assessee need not show the business expediency for the same. An assessee or for that matter any person is free to use his own funds the way he wants. In the present case, as the assessee has used owned funds for such lending, we do not find any need to go into the question of commercial expediency - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1181
Sales turnover computation - Held that:- the decision of the Tribunal is binding on the Assessing Officer and he cannot pick up a word or sentence from the order of the Tribunal de hors the context of the question under consideration and construe it to be complete law declared by the Tribunal. A judgment must be read as a whole. Being so, the Assessing Officer cannot sit in judgment over the order of the Tribunal, and he is required to give just effect to the order of the Tribunal. If he has any grievance, he is at liberty to appeal against that order of the Tribunal before higher forum.
We direct the AO to strictly consider that the assessee has only manufactured 156 WTGs and inter divisional transfer cannot be treated as sales and the same has to be reduced from the total sales and he has to arrive the cost of 1 WTG by dividing the total cost of manufacture by 156 WTGs and correspondingly recompute the sale turnover and grant depreciation on 6 WTGs at applicable rate which were inter-divisional transfers
Levy of interest u/s.220(2) - Held that:- The period specified under section 220(1) has to be taken into consideration from the date of passing of the fresh assessment order and not the earlier assessment order, which has been set aside. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1180
Transfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- We agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that adjustment if at all is required to be made then the same should be made in respect of transactions with the AE only accordingly, the TPO is directed to make the adjustment only with respect to transaction with the AE and not for the entire revenue as costs.
Whatever disallowances which has been made by the AO under various heads should be reduced from the operating cost as it will amount to double addition.
Disallowances of software and license - alternatively, as claimed by assessee that if the same is treated as capital expenses, then depreciation under section 32 should be directed to be allowed - Held that:- It can be seen that, some of the expenditures are periodical and recurring in nature, which cannot be held to be capital in nature. Because these expenditures are part and parcel for running of and maintenance of computer programmes essential for business. However, all these details and bills and vouchers along with the nature of expenditures have not been examined properly by the AO as well as by the DRP, therefore, in the interest of justice, we feel that the issue of software expenses should be remitted back to the file of the AO and should be decided afresh after considering these bills and vouchers and also the nature of expenses. It is clarified that if payment is recurring in nature purely for software then same cannot be disallowed as capital. In case some of the expenditures are treated as capital then, needless to say that AO will allow deprecation of such expenditure.
Disallowance of travelling expenses being 50% claim - Held that:- Even before us, the entire details have not been furnished. However, looking to the fact that foreign travelling expenses has been recurring expenditure in all the assessment years and in this year, the percentage is only 3% of the total turnover, therefore, in the interest of justice, we feel that the disallowance made should be restricted to 25% of the total expenditure debited on account of travelling expenses. Thus, the assessee gets part relief on this score. Similarly, on ad-hoc disallowance of telephone and communication, the same was made 50% on total expenditure claimed at ₹ 14,76,748/- on the ground that relevant details have not been furnished. Since similar position is continuing at the stage of the Tribunal also, therefore, like in the travelling expenses, we direct the AO to disallow 25% of the total expenditure debited on this head. Thus, assessee gets part relief on this score also.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1179
Taxing the bank interest as income from other sources - assessee is a charitable organisation with DIT (E), Mumbai, under Section 12A - Held that:- The assessee depositing money in the bank does not constitute trade, commerce or business. The Assessing Officer has in fact gone much beyond and held that the interest itself constitutes taxable income falling foul of the proviso to section 2(15). If the Assessing Officer's view is correct, it will militate against the mandate requirement and object of Section 11(5) of the Act read with Section 13 of the Act. These Sections require an entity seeking the shelter of Sections 11 to 13 to deposit its surplus funds in specified assets and it cannot be that the mandate requirement and object of Section 11 (5) which serves to put in place a mechanism to regulate the funds of the charitable institutions are overcome, overridden and nullified by an interpretation so that the very mandate of Section 11(5) if complied with results in the institutions being declared to be non-charitable. This is a contradiction in terms and therefore must be rejected. Accordingly, we hold that the interest earned on fixed deposit with banks complying with the provisions of Section 11(5) is exempt and the proviso to Section 2(15) has no application to the facts of the assessee's case.
In view of the above, we set aside the order of both the lower authorities and direct the AO to delete the addition of interest so made which is exempt u/s.11(5) of the Act and the proviso to Section 2(15) has no application to the facts of instant case. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1178
Income from works contract and machine hiring charges - AO estimated the net profit at 10 per cent. of gross contract receipts on the ground of unverifiable nature of account, from which, he has allowed salary and interest to partners - Held that:- It is the case of the assessee that the authorities below have estimated the income from contract works at 10 per cent. as against 8 per cent. before allowing bank interest and depreciation, which is arbitrary and excessive. We observe that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) does not put forth any reasons and views specifically for which he has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue and it is much more general in nature. The assessee has itself computed net profit at 6.30 per cent. of gross contract receipts. In our considered view, taking into account the net profit generally applicable in the case of works contract, the net profit at 8 per cent. will be reasonable. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct to estimate the net profit at 8 per cent. as against 10 per cent. adopted by the authorities below.
Addition under section 68 made on account of Shaym Trading Co. and Sahoo Enterprises - Held that:- We observe that although the assessee is pleading that sundry creditors are genuine, but it is on record that the sundry creditors have denied any transactions with the assessee during the relevant year. In view of this, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the said creditors are genuine or not and if it is found to be genuine, then relief may be allowed to the assessee
Credit of TDS amount and the levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C - Held that:- Cuttack Bench in the case of Biraja Construction v. Asst. CIT [2013 (12) TMI 295 - ITAT CUTTACK ] wherein the Tribunal has held that it is necessary to direct the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS certificate by the assessee or partners in the return for the purpose of claiming credit for TDS, when the Assessing Officer has accepted the income was to be given credit to the assessee being the firm returning the income for claiming the advance tax paid but deducted at source. The Assessing Officer in that order is directed to give credit to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the income is taken in the hands of the firm and if so, he is directed to give credit to the TDS amount to the assessee in accordance with law. The levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C is consequential
-
2016 (5) TMI 1177
Validity of reopening of assessment - Held that:- Re-assessment proceedings are initiated based on the same set of information as was available at the time of original assessment proceedings and therefore it amounts to mere change of opinion which cannot be a valid ground for re-opening assessment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ).
In the above circumstances, we hold that formation of belief by the AO that income escaped assessment is not based on material and the substratum for the reopening was not laid down in the reasons recorded. Therefore, the condition precedent i.e. reason to belief that income escaped assessment is totally absent. This is a jurisdictional condition which requires to be satisfied for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147. Non-satisfaction of this condition renders all the proceedings initiated u/s 147 null and void. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by AO are illegal and cannot be sustained in law. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1176
Genuineness of the production and sale of fertilisers and the amount of subsidy received from the Government of Uttar Pradesh - Held that:- Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has recorded the findings that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and sale of fertilisers and such findings have been made based on the remand reports and the orders of the trade tax authorities and the Central Excise authorities and the Directorate of Agriculture, U. P. Government. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also based his findings on the order of the Meerut court in an first information report filed against the assessee for showing fictitious production of fertilisers which was upheld by the High Court. We find that it could not be shown by the Revenue to us as to how such findings are not in consonance with the material on record. In view of quite speaking order based on evidence passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Decided against revenue
Estimation of net profit - Held that:- We agree with the contention of the learned authorised representative that the estimation of net profit in any case should be on a reasonable basis and we find that the maximum assessed profits shown by the assessee in the earlier years is 8.42 per cent. Further, since no other reasonable basis has been given by the learned Departmental representative, we hold that the reasonable net profit rate taking into consideration the past history of the assessee be taken at 8.5 per cent. and the income of the assessee be calculated accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1175
Exemption u/s 11 - charitable purposes - business activity incidental to the attainment of objectives of the trust - the words "not involving the carrying on any activity for profit" were dropped from section 2(15). - Held that:- As long as broader public cause is served, whether by the State funding or by efficient regulation of the affairs, it is an object of general public utility. It is also important to bear in mind that costs of proper development of area are also costs incidental to the plots and units sold by the assessee and, therefore, these two things should not be seen in isolation
The authorities below were not justified in declining the benefit of section 11 read with section 2(15) to the assessee, and in holding that the assessee-trust was not covered by advancement of any object of general public utility. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of exemption - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 1174
Addition u/s 68 - failure to produce evidence in respect of credit entries in the capital account of the partner - Held that:- Learned counsel for the assessee has produced a copy of the assessment order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Assessing Officer, whereby the claim of the assessee has been accepted. The said order is taken on record. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue that after remand, the order was passed on 20.12.2010 accepting the version of the assessee. - Decided in favour of the assessee
Addition on account of interest paid to M/s Saini Car Scheme under Section 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- The amount received by the assessee from Saini Car Scheme were for business purposes. The assessee advanced a sum of ₹ 17,60,053/- as loans to employees on which no interest was charged. The advancing of loan to the employees was for business purposes of the assessee. The factual matrix was neither controverted by the revenue nor any contrary material was produced before the Tribunal to show that the addition of ₹ 6,16,645/- was wrongly deleted.- Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1173
Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) for employees contribution beyond due date of payment - Held that:- The assessee credited the amount of employees contribution in the books and delayed in depositing the same with PF/ESI department within the statutory time limit. Ld. Assessing Officer further observed that assessee was required to deposit PF on a monthly basis but in respect of PF deducted at ₹ 59,784/- the same was deposited after the due date of payment and claimed the same to be deductible u/s 43B of the Act to have been deposited before the due date of filing the return. Respectfully following the decision in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act at ₹ 59,784/- in regard to employees contribution deposit beyond due date of payment - Decided against assessee
Disallowance of proportionate interest - Held that:- Looking to the past history of decisions by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case it has been repeatedly held that no disallowance is called for on account of proportionate disallowance of interest for application of borrowed funds to interest free loans and advances and therefore, for the year under appeal also we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance - Decided against revenue
Addition on account shortage of automobile parts - Held that:- From going through the records, we observe that short was duly shown in the quantitative details forming part of tax audit report showing therein a shortage of 1111 number of parts. We however, observe that complete quantitative details have been maintained and no defect has been pointed out by ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. We further observe that total number of 825262 nos. of components were sold during the year and in percentage terms the shortage is just 0.13% of the total items sold. We are of the considered view that ld. Assessing Officer has made an estimated addition without corroborating the facts with the books of accounts and not pointing out any mistake in the quantitative purchase and sale nor any defect has been pointed out in the manufacturing activities carried on by the assessee and not appreciating the fact that while conducting business of items which are huge in numbers, a minor shortage on account of pilferage, handling, wear and tear etc. cannot be ruled out. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of diesel expenses and trip and bhatta expenses - Held that:- Respectfully applying the ratio of the decision taken by coordinate bench on the issue which is verbatim same in assessee’s own case the disallowance on account of trip bhatta and diesel expenses to be restricted to 1/3rd of the total disallowance of ₹ 41,74,300/-. In other words, disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A) at ₹ 13,82,433/- is upheld. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 1172
Suppression of sales - Held that:- When the assessee had filed annual return showing higher turnover and paid the amount of CST on the basis of CST sales reported in annual return and this is not shown to us that any rectification request was made before sales tax authority or that any refund was received or claimed from the sales tax authority on account of higher amount of CST sales reported in annual return by mistake, this is not acceptable that there is a mistake in the amount of CST sales as per the annual return filed before the sales tax authority. Monthly returns are filed earlier after each month and thereafter, annual return is filed after the end of the financial year and in the present case, the annual returns for the financial year 2004-05 was filed on 01-06-2005. Hence, it cannot be claimed that there is a mistake in the annual return only on this basis alone that figure of sale reported in monthly return is less, as compared to figure of turnover reported in annual return because the annual returns are filed after proper verification and generally, we find that there may be mistake in the monthly return and not in the annual return. Mere comparison with the monthly return is not sufficient, particularly when there is no rectification application filed before the sales tax authority, asking for rectification in annual return and asking for refund of excess sales tax paid on the basis of mistake in the annual return. Hence, we find that no merit in this contention that there is mistake in the annual return - Decided against assessee
Addition of difference between the value of stocks falsely declared to Canara Bank as at 31-03-2004 and 31-03- 2005 - Held that:- We find that as per the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 wherein it was held that closing stock as on 31-03-2004 should be considered as opening stock on 01-04-2004 relevant for the assessment year 2005-06. In the present year, the closing stock as per stock statement given to Canara Bank as on 31-03-2005 is ₹ 51.70 lakhs. The closing stock as per the stock statement submitted to Canara Bank as on 31-03-2004 was of ₹ 35,74,910/- and the AO made the addition of difference amount only of ₹ 15,95,091/-. This is in line with the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05 - Decided against assessee
Addition of bogus creditors - Held that:- The addition in dispute as per this ground of ₹ 7.24 lakhs is in respect of these creditors. It is also noted by the learned CIT(A) that even in appeal, the assessee could not establish anything better. The assessee has filed confirmation of these three creditors by way of additional evidence on pages 338 to 340 of the paper book but this is not a case where confirmation was not available earlier. In fact, these three creditors filed confirmation before the AO also and they appeared before the AO and confirmed only part amount of the credits and the AO allowed the benefit to the extent of credit amount confirmed by these creditors. There is nothing brought on record before any of the authorities below or before us that why these parties confirmed only part of the amount of the credit when they appeared before the AO. Therefore, on the basis of these confirmation letter submitted before us as additional evidence, no relief can be allowed to the assessee in view of the fact that these parties appeared before the AO and confirmed only part amount of credit and nothing has been brought on record by the assessee to show that there was any mistake in the statement of these three parties before the AO, as per which they confirmed only part amount of credits - Decided against assessee
Unexplained cash deposit - Held that:- The entire amount of closing stock of earlier year has been considered by the AO as opening stock of the present year and the additions was made by the AO to the extent of excess of closing stock of the present year over such opening stock. It means that the entire amount of opening stock has been considered as part of the closing stock of the present year and therefore, such opening stock cannot be available for explaining cash deposit in the bank because, even if it is held that opening stock was sold and the sale price was used for purchasing different items which were available in closing stock then also, G.P addition has to be made in respect of such sales out of opening stock. Under these facts, the assessee does not deserve any relief on this point. Moreover, ld.CIT(A) has no power to set aside the matter to the file of the AO and he has to decide the issue himself and if required, he may obtain remand report from the AO. In the present case, ld.CIT(A) has restored the matter to the file of the AO with some directions. The order of the ld. CITA) is not sustainable and therefore, we set aside his order on this issue and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision
Validity of assessment - period of limitation - Held that:- We find that as per the provisions of sub-sec.2A of sec. 153 of the IT Act, 1961, the AO had to pass a consequential assessment order after setting aside of the matter to his file by the Tribunal as per its order u/s 254 of the IT Act. The present assessment order had been passed by the AO after passing of the order by the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the IT Act as per which, the scope of the original Tribunal order was enlarged by the Tribunal and therefore, we find force in the submission of the ld. DR of the revenue that the period of limitation as provided in sub-sec.2A of sec.153 has to be considered from the receipt of this order in M.P. in the office of CIT and when this is done than it is clear that the present assessment order is not time barred because the same is passed before the expiry of one year from the end of FY in which the order u/s 254(2) of the IT Act was passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1171
TDS u/s 195 - assessee in default - withholding of tax - A.O in treating the assessee as an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source on remittances made to M/s. RPS Energy Ltd., U.K. - India-UK DTAA - Activity of carrying out the 3D Seismic interpretation including basin modeling, culminating in prospect generate along with GRV calculations, play fairway mapping and risking of prospects for exploratory drilling. The A.O further observed that the non-resident is furnishing the report which consists development and transfer of a technical plan and technical design which enables the assessee to take decision of exploration in the Block MB-OSN-20-5/2. The A.O further observed that the report contains number of Maps, designs, Seismic Data charts and figures.
Held that:- For the sake of completeness, there are significant distinction between the definition as prescribed u/s. 9 of the Act of “fees for technical services” as compared with the definition prescribed in Article 13 of Indo-UK treaty. But the settled law is that the provisions of DTAA overrides the provisions of IT Act in the matter of ascertainment of taxability under the Income Tax Act. At this juncture, it is worth to mention the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has decided that there was no obligation for withholding tax on any person making payment to a non-resident, if the payment made to non-resident is not chargeable under the provisions of the I.T. Act.
After considering the totality of the facts of the case in hand, in our considered opinion, the revenue could not prove that there was transfer of Technology by M/s. RPS Energy Ltd to the assessee nor it has been proved that the impugned transactions have made available technical expertise skill or knowledge by processing the data provided by the assessee. Nor it has been proved that the assessee can apply independently and without assistance and undertake such survey independently excluding RPS Energy Ltd. in future.
Assuming that M/s. RPS Energy Ltd., rendered services as defined u/s. 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2 of the Act, yet it does not satisfy the requirement of technical services as contained in India-UK DTAA. We set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to delete the impugned addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1170
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Even if the investment did not yield any dividend in the year under consideration, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act on the expenditure incurred for earning income is warranted, notwithstanding the fact that no such income was earned. Further, we find that while making investment, the element of expenditure involved in the process cannot be ruled out. However, this expenditure may not be direct. Thus, there is an expenditure involved in making these investments. Therefore, there is a need to identify and apportion a reasonable amount of expenses as attributable for earning the exempted income.
After taking various factors into consideration, came to a conclusion that such expenses can be reasonably calculated @ 0.5% of the average investments made by the assessee. For this purpose, the legislature has arrived at a common formula to calculate the expenses @ 0.5% of the average investments made as per step-3 of the formula given in Rule-8D. Accordingly the legislature incorporated and introduced the Rule-8D. Further, as could be seen from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has rightly quantified the expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and disallowed under section 14A of the Act. - Decided against assessee
Disallowance of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) - whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use less than 180 days in the preceding previous year? - Held that:- Assessee is entitled to claim 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year when the plant and machinery was put in use for less than 180 days in the preceding previous year. Thus, respectfully following the decision in the case of Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. v. DCIT (2016 (4) TMI 34 - ITAT CHENNAI ), we direct the Assessing Officer to allow 50% of additional depreciation in the succeeding year as claimed by the assessee. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 1169
Penalty levied u/s 221(1) - delay in payment of self assessment tax u/s 140A - Held that:- From the analysis of provisions of section 140A(1), we find that the section requires that assessee is liable to pay taxes on the total income on the basis of any return u/s 139 after reducing the advance taxes and tax deducted at source, if any and such return shall be accompanied with the proof of payment of such taxes and interest. Sub-section 3 of section 140A requires that if an assessee fails to pay whole or any part of any such tax or interest the assessee shall be deemed to be an assessee in default and therefore, the provisions of Act shall apply accordingly.
It is apparent from the above that section 140 (A)(1) of the Act applies in respect of return required to be furnished u/s 139 of the Act. The return in this case was required to be furnished u/s 139 of the Act by 31st January, 2011. The entire tax was paid by 1.12.2010 which is much prior to the due date of filing of return which happened to be 31/01/2011 and if the entire tax has been paid before the filing of due date of return there can not be said to be default u/s 140A(1) of the Act. The only default committed by assessee is that it had filed its return of income on 30.09.2010 and by the date of filing of return the taxes were not paid but the fact remains the due date of filing of return was extended to 31st January, 2011 and, therefore, technically the assessee was entitled to pay taxes before the due date of filing of return which happened to be 31st January, 2011. The entire taxes has been paid by 1st December, 2010 and therefore, the breach is merely a technical breach and for which no penalty should have been levied. Moreover, the assessee has paid interest as applicable under the provisions of Act. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and specifically the fact that assessee belonged to disturbed area of Jammu & Kashmir, the penalty in this case was not impossible - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1168
Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions of section 269SS - Held that:- We find that the assessee instead of merely responding by way of journal entry on 26.9.2006 in its books, had erroneously passed a receipt entry and a payment entry in its cash book. Hence the entire penalty proceedings had been triggered only based on mere book entries of the assessee and there is no categorical finding that the assessee indeed had received cash from the director when the assessee had actually denied the same. We also find that independent examination of the director was made by the Learned AO to ascertain the true facts, wherein the director had categorically stated on oath that he neither had any cash balance or paid any cash loan to the company. We also find that merely by passing one receipt entry in cash book and one payment entry in cash book for the same sum of ₹ 17,25,000/-,no additional source of cash had emanated to the assessee, which fact is quite evident from the relevant pages of the cash book itself, forming part of the paper book filed before us. We find that the closing cash balance as on 26.9.2006 was only ₹ 13,17,466.11 and it had not increased by ₹ 17,25,000/- as alleged by the Learned AO. We are convinced that there is no case for invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and hence the penalty levied u/s 271D for violation of section 269SS of the Act thereon is quashed herewith - Decided in favour of assessee
Penalty u/s 271E - violation of provisions of section 269T - Held that:- assessee was duly necessitated by force to make the payments in cash to its director for onward transmission to the buyers of agricultural lands. - assessee had duly adduced reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act and hence no penalty could be levied u/s 271D of the Act.
Further,t here is nothing on record that transactions made by the assessee is not genuine and the amount involved was unaccounted. - There is no case for invoking the provisions of section 269T of the Act and hence the penalty levied u/s 271E for violation of section 269T of the Act thereon is quashed herewith.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1167
Entitlement to deduction on account of premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policies of its partners - Held that:- As decided in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/s Ramesh Steels, Ludhiana [2016 (5) TMI 1155 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] in the case of the assessee where it has been held that the Keyman insurance policy taken out in respect of partner of the firm would be admissible expenditure.
Premium paid by the assessee related to period beyond 31.3.2005 - whether not allowable deduction for the assessment year 2005-06? - Held that:- Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to show that the claim of deduction of premium on Keyman insurance policy amounting to Rs. 84,68,494/- was erroneously granted and the order of the Tribunal was unsustainable
-
2016 (5) TMI 1166
Exemption under section 11 - capital expenditure incurred by the assessee on objects of general public utility - Held that:- Apex Court in S.RM.M.CT.M. Tiruppani Trust's case (1998 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ) had held that the amounts spent on acquiring capital assets for the trust were exempt.
In the present case, the town development expenditure of ₹ 3,79,192/- and expenditure against works of ₹ 8,76,538/- was incurred by the Improvement Trust under the statutory scheme as envisaged in Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 and, therefore, would be entitled to exemption. Learned counsel for the respondent-revenue has not been able to dispute the settled legal position and also the factual matrix noticed hereinbefore. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 1165
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the land sold qualifies as agricultural land.
2. Distance of the land from the municipal limits.
3. Applicability of capital gains tax on the sale of the land.
4. Competency of the Tehsildar to issue a certificate regarding the distance of the land from the municipal limits.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of whether the land sold qualifies as agricultural land:
The assessee claimed exemption from capital gains on the sale of land by asserting it was agricultural land. The Assessing Officer initially denied the exemption, arguing that the assessee, being an advocate, did not personally engage in agricultural activities. However, the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that agricultural operations were conducted by the assessee's brother, and there is no legal requirement for the land to be self-cultivated to qualify as agricultural land. The Tribunal noted that the land was recorded as agricultural in the revenue records and was used for agricultural purposes until the sale.
2. Distance of the land from the municipal limits:
The central issue was whether the land was situated beyond 8 kilometers from the municipal limits, as required by Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for it to be considered agricultural land. The Tehsildar, the Executive Engineer, and the Income Tax Inspector all provided certificates and reports confirming that the land was more than 9 kilometers from the municipal limits. The Tribunal and the High Court upheld these findings, dismissing the Revenue's contention that the Tehsildar was not competent to issue such a certificate.
3. Applicability of capital gains tax on the sale of the land:
The Revenue argued that the land should not be treated as agricultural and thus should be subject to capital gains tax. The Tribunal and the High Court, however, concluded that the land met all the conditions under Section 2(14)(iii) to be classified as agricultural land. They emphasized that the land's use, location, and distance from the municipal limits were consistent with the statutory requirements for agricultural land, thereby exempting it from capital gains tax.
4. Competency of the Tehsildar to issue a certificate regarding the distance of the land from the municipal limits:
The Revenue questioned the Tehsildar's authority to certify the land's distance from the municipal limits. The Tribunal and the High Court dismissed this objection, affirming that the Tehsildar, as a revenue officer, is competent to issue such certificates. This view was supported by multiple judicial precedents, including decisions from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which recognized the Tehsildar's authority in such matters.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the land in question was agricultural and situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits, thereby exempting it from capital gains tax. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Revenue's appeal and upheld the certificates and reports provided by the Tehsildar and other authorities. The judgment emphasized that the classification of land as agricultural depends on its use, location, and compliance with statutory requirements, not on the profession of the landowner.
............
|
9911796707
