|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 628 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 325
Disallowance - Capital or revenue expenditure - the expenditure incurred is for developing software system for improving the inhouse management efficiencies and profitability of the assessee - Since the expenditure incurred is for developing system on professional basis, it is considered as deferred capital expenditure which is required to be written off over a period of 4 years There was no evidence of such expertise available with the parent company to impart any such training to the staff of the assessee company or that the training was actually rendered by Ramco Systems - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (12) TMI 324
Validity of reopening of case under 147 - Held That:- It is clearly seen from the records that the return was merely processed and accepted initially. After recording proper reasons, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148.Since no original assessment was completed there is ample scope to reopen the case. Adequacy of reasons cannot be questioned. Reliance placed on Janardan Dwarakadas(Mumbai High Court)
Whether Consideration received for supplying the Repair Technical Document are in nature of "fee for technical Service" liable to tax deduction - Held That:- Drawings and designs were passed on along with other technical information which are essential for carrying out repair works on the submarine. he services were rendered separately by deputing personnel. There is no reason to spilt the transaction except for the purpose of tax. The personnel could not have carried out the repair works without the RTDs. In so far as the technical information supplied is utilized in the contracting state, there is necessity to tax the same.Decided against assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 323
Dis-allowances under 10A - manufacturing in Free trade zone - STPI approval on 28.03.2000 - conversion of undertaking in 96-97, beneficial interest transferred under consideration - Held That:- Assessee had intended to convert the existing unit set up in assessment year 1996-97 to STP unit. Therefore, contention of the assessee that a new unit was set up is an after thought and nothing more.
-
2011 (12) TMI 322
Trust - Accumulation under 11(2) - Application on FIFO basis - Held That:- The amount of Rs. 2,30 crores spent on acquisition of assets has come from the earlier accumulation or out of the accumulation in financial year 2001-02 is not clear. The assessee has to prove with evidence that the amount accumulated under section 11(2) of the Act was used for the purpose for which it was accumulated. Detail not available case remanded back.
Depreciation on Fixed Assets - Amount treated as application of income - Held That:- In view of Tiny Tots Education Society (2010 - TMI - 202259 - Punjab and Haryana High Court), depreciation allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 321
Deduction under 80IB - Return filed on 9.01.07 against due date on 31.10.06 - Assessee: 139(4) was in the nature of proviso to section 139(1) and that the due date for furnishing return of income u/s 139 would automatically get extended by period prescribed u/s 139(4) - Held That:- Judgment of CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011 (10) TMI 279 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ], is in respec to Sec 54 and has no in the instant case. Decided against assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 320
Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that commission of Rs.25,00,000 paid to Mr. Ashok Gupta, managing director of the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction in view of section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the said amount can be only allowed under section 36(1)(ii) if dividend of Rs. 25,00,000 could not have been paid to Mr. Ashok Gupta - Ashok Gupta is the managing director and in terms of the board resolution is entitled to receive commission for services rendered to the company - . Ashok Gupta was liable to pay tax on both the salary component and the commission. Payment of dividend is made in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (12) TMI 319
Interest under 234B & 234C is payable on "Advance Tax OR Assessed Income" - Held That:- In view of Jacob Export House v. CIT [2010 (7) TMI 394 - Punjab and Haryana High Court] , tax payable on income assessed under section 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act and not on the basis of income declared in the return by the assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 318
Capital Gain - Exemption under 54F - AO denied exemption as assessee already owns a flat on date of transfer - Revenue further appealed - Assessee: Tax effect less than 1,00,000 appeal not maintainable - Held That:- On scrutiny it reveled that additions were subject matter of challenge the tax effect was more than one lac there is no prohibition on the right of the Department for filing an appeal and the Board's circular dated 27th March, 2000 would not be attracted in the present case.
-
2011 (12) TMI 317
Registration u/s 12AA - the application filed by the assessee for registration, under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, has been rejected at the threshold itself holding that one of the object clauses, namely, clause No.16 speaks about publishing newspapers in regional, national and English language - A plain reading of the above would show that the term 'charitable' includes the word 'education' also - Supreme Court in the case in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court], wherein it was held that the word 'education' should be construed with wider connotation (sic) As far as the amendment made to the trust deed is concerned, it is not the concern of the assessing authority, and only the civil Court is empowered to decide the said issue and in any event that cannot be the reason for denying the charitable nature of the institution, if it is otherwise charitable - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (12) TMI 316
A sum to be treated as income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, pursuant to search had been detected in a search and the assessee had not established the source of the said sum by producing positive evidence? Held that :- M.S.I.L. assessee had written a letter to the Assessing Officer that it has subscribed to the additional share capital - the Department is not making available to the Court the documents that are seized during search in the present case - unexplained share capital contribution even if not genuine cannot be treated as undisclosed income (CIT v. Steller Investments Ltd., 2000 (7) TMI 76 - SUPREME Court )- Appeal was dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 315
Profit for the purpose of deduction under section 10A of the Act should be allowed before or after deduction for set of of unabsorbed loss and depreciation -the assessee had treated income as business income and had claimed exemption under Section 10A of the Act and set off of unabsorbed depreciation against the same pertaining to assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 - Revenue contented the assessee is not entitled for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 against the income determined for the assessment year 2001-2002 - Held that :- Appeals are devoid of merit and was dismissed . The relevant assessment year for the purpose of Section 10A(6) of the Act year which immediately follows the block of ten assessment years from assessment years - The loss incurred by the assessee under the head profits and gains of business or profession has to be set off against the profits and gains if any, of any business or profession carried on by such assessee -as the profits and gains under Section 10A is not be included in the income of the assessee at all, the question of setting off the loss of the assessee of any profits and gains of business against such profits and gains of the undertaking would not arise - appeals in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 314
Assessment under 115JA(MAT) - Interest under 234A,234B,234C - Held That:- Interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act as the assessment has been made under Section 115JA of the Act. is valid and decision of Kwality Biscuits is not applicable.
-
2011 (12) TMI 313
Sale of gold jewelery remained unproved even though the buyer of the jewellery was registered under the Sales tax Act - the transactions in regard to the sale of gold jewellery was not genuine because of certain irregularities in the accounts - sale of gold jewellery was genuine just because the buyer of gold jewellery who had wound up his business could not be traced after nearly three years - Held that :- If the assessee is able to prove at the bullion that was sold was made out of the jewelery declared in the application under VDIS 97, the said amount realized to the said transaction would not amount to unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act - substantial question of law had to be answered in affirmative - appeal is allowed
-
2011 (12) TMI 299
Validity of Reopening - Time limitation - reason to believe - Held that:- there was no assessment on the return of income filed by the assessee for the AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05 and only processed u/s 143(1); therefore, the cases for these assessment years do not fall under the first proviso to sec. 147. - for those two years apart from no assessment, the reopening is within four years, the first proviso to sec. 147 is not applicable.
Re-opening on the basis of a case of next year - the information and the material gathered during the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2005-06 whereby the rental income was assessed under the head income from house property constitute a tangible material for forming to believe by the Assessing Officer that the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the reopening for the AY 2001-02 to 2004-05 is valid and as per law.
Regarding regarding treatment of rental income as income from house property - the agreement to sub-let the property by the assessee to the third party, it is clear that the assessee was in the possession of the property with full transferable rights and has been receiving the rent from the sub-tenant in his own capacity being owner of the property - it is clear that for the purpose of I T Act, the aspect of ownership is different from the common law and if the assessee is having right to use and occupy the property and to enjoy its usufruct in his own right would be the owner of the property though may not be having the formal deed of title in his favour as contemplating under the Transfer of Property Act - Held that: the lower authorities have rightly treated the assessee as deemed owner u/s 27(iiib) of the Act and subsequently treated the rental income from sub-tenant as income from house property - Decided against the assessee.
Regarding determination of the Annual Letting Value (ALV) - Assessing Officer took future agreements into consideration while computing the ALV in the years under consideration - Held that: for determination of the ALV under section 23(1), the Assessing Officer has first to find out the reasonably expected rent which the property might fetch by letting out from year to year and then this reasonably expected rent has to be compared with the annual rent received or receivable by the owner and if annual rent received or receivable as contemplated under section 23(1)(b) is in excess of the reasonable rent expected from letting out the property from year to year as determined u/s 23(1)(a) the amount so received or receivable would the annual value for the purpose of section 22 of the Act - Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose
-
2011 (12) TMI 298
Reimbursement of employees' expenses on public taxis in connection with the business of the company is of the nature of payment of conveyance allowance, thereby attracting the dis-allowance under Section 37(A) - Held That:- It is clear that the expenditure referred to in Section 37(3B)(ii) pertains to running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars. In our view, taxis used by employees of the assessee company for the business of the assessee company cannot be construed as hiring of cars as contemplated under the said provisions. Reliance placed on CIT v. General Electric Co. of India Ltd ( 2001 (12) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA High Court) & CIT v. Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd. (2000 (3) TMI 15 - BOMBAY High Court)
Depreciation allowance when property not registered in name of assessee - Held That:- In view of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court), depreciation allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 297
Unaccounted Cash seized - Notice under 142(1) - Held That:- Section 175 read with Section 174(3) of the Act cannot be sustained on account of there being no prima facie consideration or satisfaction of the assessing officer that the assessee is likely to transfer property to avoid tax; which is a pre-requisite to create the charge of income tax on the income of the current year as provided under Section 175 and also for the absence of any notice under Section 174(4); as again specifically provided under Section 175. In the circumstances, Exhibit P4 revisional order as well as Exhibit P1 assessment order are set aside. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 296
Rectification of mistake - Assessee engaged in running educational institute - Advanced to P.V RAvi (Managing Trust) - Violation of Section 13 exemption denied under Sec 11 - Tribunal: Assessee paid huge interest on borrowing amount and has given an interest free loan further in the absence of any agreement, it has to be held that it was in violation of the said section - Tribunal reviewed its order under 254(2) considering it as mistake apparent from record - Revenue aggrieved by said order is in appeal - Held That:- Section 254(2) of the Act has been enacted not only to safeguard the interest of the assessee but also to enable the Tribunal to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Decided against revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 295
Appeal u/s 10F - It is evident that during the pendency of the company petition, after hearing the counsel for the parties on 14.7.2009, learned Chairman (Mr. S. Balasubramanian) of the Company Law Board passed an order on 16.7.2009 - Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Company has vehemently argued that even if the impugned order dated 6.10.2010 is regarded as an interlocutory order, the same is covered under the ambit of Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 - Even if there could be a review in the event of an order sought to be reviewed suffers from some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record but in the instant matter no such mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record - decree is without jurisdiction if the court passing the decree usurps a jurisdiction which it did not have and which could not be waived by the parties - Held that: the order dated 16.7.2009 is a consent order and it is binding upon the parties to the lis unless it is challenged and the same is interfered with by the Courts above - If the valuation report was objected to by the parties, the objections could have been referred to the valuer for giving valuation report, including valuation of shares afresh, upon considering the objections or any other independent valuer could be appointed for furnishing valuation report - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (12) TMI 293
Revenue or capital expenditure - Deduction of the amounts spent on replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure - replacement of independent complete machinery - Block of asset - expenditure incurred on repairs of the rented building - Held that :- the substantial questions of law as covered as per the judgment of this Court, dated 25.04.2011 in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.71 and 72 of 2008 - once the concept of block of assets has been brought in by the Parliament from the assessment year 1988-89, whether the mill is an integrated whole or not, whether the replacement of machines resulted in increased capacity or not, will have no bearing and when any item belonging to the block is removed, its value is reduced and if any new item comes in its place, its value is added to the block - tax case appeal are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act permits deduction of only such expenses not being capital expenditure of the nature prescribed under Sections 30 to 36 - when the major repairs in the nature of capital expenditure is carried out, it cannot be treated as deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, merely because the premises is rented - tax case appeal decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 287
Registration under trust - non charitable objectives - Held That:- In view of Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1979 - TMI - 5217 - SUPREME Court), registration granted.
Voluntary Contribution forming part of corpus - Held That:- While granting registration issue of voluntary contributions are not to be consider such matter to be decided at the time of assessment. Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
