Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (12) 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 61 to 80 of 1251 Records

• 2012 (12) TMI 1197
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Inclusion of certain incomes in profits for deduction u/s 80HHC.
  2. Computation of eligible profits for deduction u/s 80HHC.
  3. Exclusion of export turnover for computing deduction u/s 80HHC.
  4. Allocation of head office expenses to units claiming deductions u/s 10B, 80IA, and 80IB.
  5. Exclusion of DEPB benefits from eligible profits.
  6. Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A.
  7. Allowance of deductions u/s 10B and 80IB on certain incomes.
  8. Computation of book profits u/s 115JB.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Inclusion of Certain Incomes in Profits for Deduction u/s 80HHC:
  The CIT (Appeals) directed not to include 90% of claims received, excess provisions written back, and miscellaneous income in the profits of business for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) had erred and directed the Assessing Officer to include these incomes in the profits of business for computing deduction u/s 80HHC.
  
  2. Computation of Eligible Profits for Deduction u/s 80HHC:
  The Assessing Officer excluded 90% of rent received, interest from customers and suppliers, and DEPB receipts from profits of business while computing deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of rent received from employees. For interest received, only net interest is to be excluded as per the Supreme Court's decision in M/s ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. The exclusion of DEPB receipts was allowed based on the retrospective amendment being ultra vires.
  
  3. Exclusion of Export Turnover for Computing Deduction u/s 80HHC:
  The export turnover of the EOU unit was excluded from the export turnover of the assessee while computing deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal upheld this exclusion following the decision in ACIT vs. Mahavir Spg. Mills Ltd. and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT, Chennai vs. Ambatture Clothing Ltd.
  
  4. Allocation of Head Office Expenses to Units Claiming Deductions u/s 10B, 80IA, and 80IB:
  The Assessing Officer allocated head office expenses to various units claiming deductions based on the turnover ratio. The Tribunal upheld this allocation, following the decision in Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. JCIT.
  
  5. Exclusion of DEPB Benefits from Eligible Profits:
  The exclusion of DEPB benefits from eligible profits while computing deduction u/s 80IA was upheld by the Tribunal based on the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India vs. CIT.
  
  6. Disallowance of Expenses u/s 14A:
  The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2 lacs under section 14A for earning exempt income, following the precedent set in the previous year.
  
  7. Allowance of Deductions u/s 10B and 80IB on Certain Incomes:
  The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee regarding the deduction u/s 10B on interest received from cotton suppliers and other incomes. The deduction u/s 80IB on profits derived from the dyeing unit was also remitted for verification.
  
  8. Computation of Book Profits u/s 115JB:
  The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) order, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. CIT, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed, with specific directions for verification and recomputation by the Assessing Officer on various issues.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1196
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IA(10) for captive consumption of power.
  2. Partial denial of deduction u/s 80-IA(10) due to alleged inflated prices of power sold.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IA(10) for captive consumption of power:

  The Revenue's grievance was that the CIT(A) held the assessee eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80-IA(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for captive consumption of power. The Revenue argued that the power was sold to a group concern located in the same premises. The learned D.R. admitted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. v. ACIT (338 ITR 643) had held that the benefit u/s 80-IA(10) could be given even for electricity generated on a captive basis. The Tribunal reiterated its earlier decision, stating that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plants qualifies for deduction u/s 80-IA(10). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

  2. Partial denial of deduction u/s 80-IA(10) due to alleged inflated prices of power sold:

  The assessee's cross-objection concerned the CIT(A)'s partial denial of deduction u/s 80-IA(10) on the grounds that the assessee had sold power at inflated prices. The learned A.R. argued that the same issue had been decided in the assessee's favor for the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that the rates at which the assessee sold power to its sister concerns could not be judged based on the rates agreed with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not provide the rate charged by TNEB for high tension categories during the relevant year or the actual rate at which the assessee sold power to its associate concerns. The Tribunal held that the agreement with TNEB, which was a standby arrangement, could not be the basis for determining market rates. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to determine if the rates charged were higher than those charged by TNEB to regular high tension customers. The cross-objection was allowed for statistical purposes.

  Conclusion:

  The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

  The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 20th of December, 2012, at Chennai.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1195
  

  Dispute regarding nature of income from the settlement of forward contract? - Hedging - Activity from outside India to be treated as Business activity or investment activity - HELD THAT:- Gains arising from early settlement of forward foreign exchange contract has to be treated as capital gain. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and appeals were allowed.

  The Assessee's contention of purchase and sale of foreign currency to be treated as Business income and not chargeable to tax as having no permanent establishment in India was rejected on the ground that the assessee being a Non-Resident Company invested in equity shares of Citicorp Finance India Ltd. by bringing capital in foreign currency and to protect its investments from the attraction of FEMA, 1999 where overseas investors were hedging their capital investment and thus assessee entered into Forward Contract rolled over periodically. Since no contrary decision has been brought to the department's notice, it has followed the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, and held that the income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Assessee are treated as partly allowed.

  Decision in the case of CITICORP INVESTMENT BANK (SINGAPORE) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1(2), MUMBAI [2012 (9) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed.

  In the result, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1194
  

  Addition on Account of 'On Money' Receipts - Assessee had canvassed that not the entire 'on money' received but only the profit element could be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Assessee had suggested addition of 10% - HELD THAT:-The additions are limited to 15% of the 'on money' receipts.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1193
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on delay in filing appeal and seeking condonation thereof.
  
  Summary:
  The appellant, engaged in construction business, challenged the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to a delay of 329 days in filing without seeking condonation. The appellant's counsel argued that due to continuous travel for work, instructions for filing the application for condonation of delay could not be immediately provided. The High Court, after reviewing the case, decided to grant the appellant one last opportunity to file the application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal's order was reversed, and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000 with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and file the application for condonation of delay by a specified date. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1192
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and directing to consider the credit of MAT before calculating interest u/s 234B of the Act.
  2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the amendment of s. 234B w.e.f. 1st April, 2007 is retrospective in nature.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: MAT Credit Consideration Before Calculating Interest u/s 234B

  The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the credit of MAT before calculating the interest for default in payment of advance taxes. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Roots Multiclean Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Apar Industries Ltd., which held that MAT credit should be set off before charging interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the provisions of s. 115JAA should be given effect before charging interest under ss. 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal's order was in line with the reasoning provided by the Delhi High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd.

  Issue 2: Retrospective Nature of Amendment to s. 234B

  The Tribunal held that the amendment to s. 234B by the Finance Act of 2006, effective from 1st April, 2007, was clarificatory and thus retrospective in nature. The Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Apar Industries Ltd. observed that the amendment was intended to remove ambiguity in the interpretation of s. 234B and should be regarded as clarificatory. The amendment aimed to ensure that MAT credit under s. 115JAA is considered while calculating interest u/s 234B, even for periods prior to the amendment. This view was supported by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd., which emphasized that the amendment was to alleviate hardship and should be applied retrospectively.

  In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax appeal, affirming that the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation and application of the law, and no further consideration of the proposed questions was necessary. The rule stands discharged.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1191
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in this case are related to the revision of assessment under the TNVAT Act, 2006 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The petitioner, a government undertaking, sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to furnish the material forming the basis for the revision of assessment.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Revision of Assessment
  The petitioner, a government undertaking, purchased silk yarn and filed self-assessment under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice on 16.10.2012 for revising the assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, alleging that the petitioner sold taxable imported china silk yarn as exempted local silk hank yarn. The petitioner responded with objections and requested to cross-examine relevant persons. The court directed the respondent to furnish material documents relied upon for the revision of assessment, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
  
  Issue 2: Opportunity for Petitioner
  The petitioner requested basic materials showing the nature of purchases, a list of samples drawn from societies, an opportunity to cross-examine relevant persons, and a personal hearing. The court emphasized that if the authority has not yet decided the issue, they should consider the petitioner's request on merits and provide necessary materials to avoid any violation of natural justice principles.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court directed the respondent authority to provide the material documents relied upon for the revision of assessment, considering the objections raised by the petitioner. If the authority has already made a decision, the petitioner is advised to seek legal remedies accordingly. Both Writ Petitions were disposed of without any costs.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and providing necessary materials to parties involved in assessment revisions under the TNVAT Act, 2006.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1190
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
  2. Legality of Reopening of Assessment u/s 147
  3. Classification of Income from Business as Capital Gains
  4. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses
  5. Disallowance of Administrative and General Expenses
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
  The appellant did not press Ground No.1 regarding the alleged violation of principles of natural justice, and it was treated as dismissed.
  
  Issue 2: Legality of Reopening of Assessment u/s 147
  The appellant challenged the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not formed any opinion about the transaction in question during the original assessment. The reopening was based on the AO's belief that income amounting to Rs. 44,90,600/- had escaped assessment. The Tribunal upheld the reopening, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd., which allows reassessment based on new tangible material and not merely a change of opinion.
  
  Issue 3: Classification of Income from Business as Capital Gains
  The appellant argued that the income/loss from buying and selling of shares should be treated as 'business income' rather than 'capital gains.' The Tribunal noted that the appellant had shown certain investments as 'investment' in its Balance Sheets and had not provided sufficient reasons to classify the loss as 'business loss.' The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the loss as 'capital loss' and allowed it to be carried forward. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim and decided against the appellant.
  
  Issue 4: Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses
  The AO disallowed Rs. 3.01 lakhs claimed as 'Miscellaneous Expenses Written Off' u/s 35D, stating that the appellant, being a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), was not entitled to such deduction. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the AO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) that the appellant was not an industrial undertaking and thus not eligible for the deduction u/s 35D. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening of assessment allowed the AO to assess any income that had escaped assessment, even if not originally mentioned.
  
  Issue 5: Disallowance of Administrative and General Expenses
  The AO disallowed 50% of the Administrative Expenses (Rs. 1.5 lakhs) and General Expenses (Rs. 93,750/-) claimed by the appellant due to lack of supporting evidence. The FAA upheld the disallowance, noting that the appellant failed to provide bills, vouchers, or any basis for the allocation of expenses with its parent company. The Tribunal agreed with the FAA, emphasizing that the burden of proof for claiming deductions lies with the appellant, which was not met in this case. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the FAA's order.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, with all grounds decided against the appellant.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1189
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Application of Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) for revenue recognition.
  2. Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3).
  3. Determination of undisclosed income.
  4. Validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.).
  5. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c).
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Application of Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) for Revenue Recognition:
  The main dispute in all appeals is regarding the application of POCM by the A.O. to determine undisclosed income. The assessee argued that POCM is not mandatory for real estate developers and that the books of account, prepared based on documents found during the search, should be accepted. The Tribunal found that POCM is not mandatory and that the guidance notes issued by ICAI are recommendatory, not mandatory. The Tribunal concluded that revenue recognition should occur when significant risks and rewards are transferred, which in this case, happened only after the conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture in October 2008.
  
  2. Rejection of Books of Account u/s 145(3):
  The A.O. rejected the books of account on the grounds that they did not provide a true and fair picture of profits. However, the Tribunal found no material defects in the books of account prepared based on documents found during the search. The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified and that the A.O. should have accepted the book results.
  
  3. Determination of Undisclosed Income:
  The A.O. determined the total project value at Rs. 15 crores and made additions based on the POCM. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown advances received from customers as liabilities and that revenue recognition should occur only after the transfer of possession and legal title. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O.'s method of determining undisclosed income was not justified.
  
  4. Validity of Additions Made by the A.O.:
  The A.O. made additions based on the POCM and rejected the assessee's method of accounting. The Tribunal found that the A.O.'s additions were not justified as the books of account were prepared based on documents found during the search and no material defects were pointed out. The Tribunal ordered that no addition on the impugned basis can be made or sustained in all these years.
  
  5. Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c):
  The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, since the Tribunal found the rejection of books of account and the additions made by the A.O. to be unjustified, the penalty proceedings would not survive.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee and dismissed all the appeals of the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the correctness of the books of account and concluded that no additions based on the POCM could be made. The Tribunal also found that the penalty proceedings initiated by the A.O. would not survive.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1188
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to direct the State Government to frame rules regarding medical facilities for retired Judges.
  2. Entitlement of retired Judges to medical facilities and the conditions thereof.
  3. Uniformity in medical benefits for retired Judges across different States.
  4. Independence of Judiciary and its relation to the service conditions of Judges.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Direct the State Government

  The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the State Government to frame any particular rule regarding medical facilities for retired Judges. This statutory power is vested in the State Government and cannot be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Appellant was right in urging this ground in the appeals.

  Issue 2: Entitlement of Retired Judges to Medical Facilities

  Section 23D of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, provides that every retired Judge is entitled to the same medical facilities as a retired officer of the Central Civil Services, Class-I. However, under Sub-section (2) of Section 23D, the State Government has the power to extend different medical facilities to retired Judges. The High Court's direction to the State Government to frame rules for medical facilities was beyond its jurisdiction, as this power is vested in the State Government.

  Issue 3: Uniformity in Medical Benefits for Retired Judges

  There is a need for uniformity in medical benefits for retired Judges across different States to avoid disparity and ensure equal treatment. Various States have different rules for medical facilities for retired Judges, leading to inequality. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the State Governments to consider extending better medical facilities to retired Judges and recommended uniform rules across States.

  Issue 4: Independence of Judiciary and Service Conditions

  The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. The service conditions of Judges, including medical facilities, should not be altered to their disadvantage. The Supreme Court highlighted that arbitrary or unreasonable conditions of service could impact the independence of the judiciary. The Court emphasized the need for uniform medical facilities for retired Judges to maintain judicial independence and impartiality.

  Conclusion:

  The appeals were disposed of with recommendations for the State Government to notify the rules for medical facilities for retired Judges as directed by the High Court. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for uniformity in medical benefits for retired Judges across different States and highlighted the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary.

  Separate Judgments:

  Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar delivered separate judgments, with Justice Patnaik allowing the appeals and Justice Kumar dismissing them.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1187
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 153C.
  2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) under Rule 46A.
  3. Treatment of alleged gift of shares as undisclosed income.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of proceedings initiated u/s 153C:
  The assessee contended that the proceedings u/s 153C were not warranted as the seized certificate from Vijaya Bank was not incriminating. However, the CIT(A) had already decided this issue against the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02, and the assessee did not appeal further. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings that the proceedings were validly initiated based on seized material and the AO's recorded satisfaction.
  
  2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) under Rule 46A:
  The AO objected to the admission of additional evidence, arguing it was not presented during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence, citing the short span of 11 working days provided by the AO for compliance. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Manish Build Well P. Ltd., emphasizing that Rule 46A's procedural requirements must be strictly followed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the AO with a reasonable opportunity to examine the additional evidence and thus restored the matter to the AO for a fresh examination.
  
  3. Treatment of alleged gift of shares as undisclosed income:
  The AO treated the gift of 23 lakh shares valued at Rs. 2,82,61,091/- as bogus and considered it as the assessee's undisclosed income. The assessee provided various documents, including a gift deed, affidavit from the donor, and demat account statements, to support the genuineness of the gift. The CIT(A) admitted these documents as additional evidence and allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, however, restored the matter to the AO to re-examine the additional evidence and decide the issue afresh.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the department's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the additional evidence provided by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with the law after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1186
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of Ld.CIT(A) regarding Assessment Year 2008-09 on grounds related to classification of profit from sale of shares, setting off of short term capital gain, disallowance of loss due to changes in client codes, and approval stamp from SEBI and NSE.
  
  Classification of profit from sale of shares: The Tribunal upheld the findings of Ld.CIT(A) that income from sale of shares was taxable under 'short term capital gain' and not 'business income'. The appellant had separate investment and trade portfolios, with no evidence of frequent trading. The holding period of shares ranged from three to ten months, indicating investment intent. The appellant used own funds for investments, with no borrowings, supporting the investment nature of the transactions.
  
  Setting off of short term capital gain: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument regarding setting off of short term capital gain against business losses, stating it was a mere human error in client code punching rectified by the National Stock Exchange. The F&O transactions were legitimate, reflected with NSE, and carried out on a recognized stock exchange, justifying the allowance of the loss and its set off against income from short term capital gain.
  
  Disallowance of loss due to changes in client codes: The Tribunal upheld Ld.CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of loss, emphasizing that the changes in client codes were rectified errors, known to NSE, and not indicative of fraud. NSE confirmed the transactions, and the changes were made to correct mistakes, not for tax evasion purposes. The loss incurred in F&O transactions was allowed as a business loss and set off against short term capital gain income.
  
  Approval stamp from SEBI and NSE: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the absence of inquiries by SEBI and NSE, stating that the changes in client codes were legitimate corrections, not warranting regulatory action. The transactions were conducted on a recognized stock exchange, NSE, and the loss incurred was allowed as a business loss, set off against short term capital gain income.
  
  Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the order of Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09, with the Tribunal upholding the classification of income from sale of shares as short term capital gain, the legitimacy of setting off short term capital gain, and the allowance of loss due to changes in client codes as a business loss.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1185
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involves the following core legal questions:

  • Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure on borrowed capital claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified.
  • Whether the interest paid to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) for delayed payment of license fees is deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  • Whether the borrowed funds were utilized for non-business purposes, thus warranting a proportionate disallowance of interest.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Expenditure on Borrowed Capital

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case primarily revolves around Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for the deduction of interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes. The precedents cited include S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (Appeals) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined the cash flow statement and found that the borrowed funds were not utilized for non-business purposes. It emphasized that the funds were fungible and could not be presumed to be used for non-business purposes without concrete evidence.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The cash flow statement showed that the total cash inflow was Rs. 49,666.15 lakhs, and the funds were utilized for business purposes such as purchasing fixed assets and preoperative expenses.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the borrowed funds were used for business purposes, and no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was warranted.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument for disallowance was based on the assumption of non-business use, which the court found unsubstantiated.
  • Conclusions: The court allowed the assessee's appeal, finding no basis for disallowing the interest expenditure.

  Issue 2: Deductibility of Interest Paid to MIB

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue involves Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for the deduction of any expenditure not being capital in nature, laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the interest paid to MIB was not penal but compensatory, arising from a business contract with the government.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The payment was a result of a contractual obligation and was compensatory in nature, not resulting from any infraction of law.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The payment was deemed compensatory, and thus deductible under Section 37(1).
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's position that the payment was penal was rejected as it was compensatory.
  • Conclusions: The court upheld the deduction of the interest paid to MIB.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The impugned order thus merits confirmation in respect of this disallowance also."
  • Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that interest on borrowed capital is deductible if used for business purposes and that compensatory payments under business contracts are deductible.
  • Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the deductibility of the interest expenditures in question.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1184
  
  The appeal was made against the denial of a refund claim due to unjust enrichment. The appellant provided a CA certificate showing no service tax was received, which was verified by the department. The burden of unjust enrichment was considered discharged, and the refund claim was allowed with consequential relief. The adjudicating authority was directed to grant the refund claim within 30 days.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1183
  
  Issues involved: The judgment involves the imposition of penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on an assessee-company for claiming certain expenses related to the education of the managing director's son as business expenses.
  
  Facts and Analysis:
  1. The assessee-company debited expenses related to the education of the managing director's son as employee training expenses, which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sec. 40A(2) of the Act.
  2. Penalty proceedings were initiated under sec. 271(1)(c) as the company furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming these expenses.
  3. The company contended that it made a bona fide claim for the expenses, which were allowed by the CIT(A) but reversed by the Tribunal, indicating differing opinions.
  4. The AO imposed a penalty for wilful concealment of income to reduce tax liability, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) based on the quantum appeal decision.
  5. The company challenged the penalty on the grounds of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment, arguing that it had not concealed any facts and had disclosed all relevant details.
  6. The Tribunal analyzed sec. 271(1)(c) and emphasized the distinction between furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing particulars of income.
  7. It was observed that the confirmation of additions in quantum proceedings does not automatically lead to the levy of penalty, as different standards apply to penalty proceedings.
  8. Referring to the decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts, it was highlighted that inaccurate particulars must involve incorrect or false details, which were not found in the present case.
  9. The Tribunal emphasized that findings in assessment proceedings do not conclusively apply to penalty proceedings, and the criteria for imposing penalties differ from those for making additions.
  10. Explaining Expln. I to sec. 271(1)(c), it was noted that if an explanation is offered and found to be bona fide and all facts disclosed, the penalty may not apply.
  11. The Tribunal concluded that the company had disclosed all material facts, genuinely believed the expenses were allowable, and the AO had not proven the claim to be false, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
  
  Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee-company, ruling to delete the imposed penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1182
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding TP matters and non TP matters.
  
  TP Matters:
  The assessee, engaged in sourcing, distribution, and marketing of Adidas products, filed returns with varying profits. Despite objections filed before the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP), the proposed additions by the Assessing Officer were upheld without detailed discussion of objections. The DRP's non-speaking order lacked consideration of objections and failed to provide reasons for decisions, leading to a remand back for re-adjudication.
  
  Non TP Matters:
  Various additions made by the Assessing Officer, including disallowance of part of AMP expenditure, addition on interest-free loans, depreciation on peripherals, and other claims, were contested by the assessee. The Assessing Officer's decisions were upheld based on detailed case laws, lack of fresh facts, and other grounds. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the DRP's order, highlighting the need for a speaking order and proper consideration of objections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was remitted back to the DRP for re-examination.
  
  This judgment emphasizes the importance of providing detailed reasons for decisions in tax matters and ensuring that all objections raised by the taxpayer are duly considered by the adjudicating authorities.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1180
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in this case are the delay in filing writ appeals, the justification of the Division Bench's decision regarding stamp duty repayment, and the compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
  
  Delay in filing writ appeals:
  The State sought condonation of a 449-day delay in filing writ appeals against the order of the learned single Judge. The reasons for the delay were supported by an affidavit, which was considered acceptable by the Supreme Court due to the financial implications and the issues to be considered by the Division Bench.
  
  Justification of Division Bench's decision on stamp duty repayment:
  The Division Bench affirmed the single Judge's order directing the State to repay the stamp duty collected. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench did not adequately consider the substantial grounds raised by the State, particularly in relation to the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The Court set aside the Division Bench's order and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
  
  Compliance with Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957:
  The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should consider the claims of all parties, including newly impleaded respondents, in accordance with the law. The Court did not express any views on the claims made by either party but directed the High Court to dispose of the case within six months from the date of the judgment.
  
  This judgment by the Supreme Court addressed the issues of delay in filing writ appeals, the justification of the Division Bench's decision on stamp duty repayment, and the compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The Court accepted the reasons for the delay in filing appeals, set aside the Division Bench's order, and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution in accordance with the law.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1179
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act
  
  The appeal was filed against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11 lacs. The assessee had voluntarily surrendered Rs. 1 crore during a survey operation, which was treated as income from other sources and deduction under section 80IB of the Act was denied. The Assessing Officer held the assessee liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal. The assessee argued that the claim for deduction was based on the advice of a Chartered Accountant and differences in opinion do not warrant penalty. However, the authorities relied on precedents to support the penalty imposition.
  
  Issue 2: Bonafide nature of the claim
  
  The tribunal found that the surrendered income was not business income but income from other sources, as per sections 69A, 69B, and 69C of the Act. The denial of deduction under section 80IB was considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to the penalty imposition. The tribunal emphasized that a claim needs to be bonafide, and incorrect claims, even if certified by a Chartered Accountant, can still attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
  
  Decision:
  
  The tribunal upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The decision was based on the finding that the claim for deduction under section 80IB was false and not bonafide, leading to the conclusion that penalty imposition was justified.
  
  This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments presented, and the final decision of the tribunal.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1178
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to correctness of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2003-04 regarding disallowance of interest payable due to non-payment of W.B. Sales Tax within specified time and interest paid on Central Sales Tax.
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of interest payable due to non-payment of W.B. Sales Tax
  
  The Assessing Officer challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 26,72,243 on account of interest payable due to non-payment of W.B. Sales Tax within specified time. The Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 had observed that the interest on sales tax was compensatory in nature and not penal. The ld. CIT(A) agreed with this contention and deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the ld. Commissioner had followed the observations and decision of the Coordinate Bench, and since the matter was covered in favor of the assessee, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance of interest paid on Central Sales Tax
  
  The Assessing Officer also challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3,660 on account of interest paid on Central Sales Tax. Similar to the first issue, the Coordinate Bench had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar case for the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal noted that the ld. Commissioner had merely followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench, and as the matter was squarely covered by precedent, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of interest payable due to non-payment of W.B. Sales Tax and interest paid on Central Sales Tax for the assessment year 2003-04, based on the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1177
  
  Issues involved: Jurisdiction of court in cases u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
  
  The High Court of Bombay heard a case involving the jurisdiction of court in cases u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Respondents initiated proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai, seeking to transfer the complaint to a court in Delhi due to all relevant events occurring there. The learned Judge allowed the transfer application, but the Respondent challenged this decision in Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the order. The High Court analyzed the situation and found that the cheques were issued, transactions occurred, and the accused had business dealings in Delhi. The only Mumbai-related aspect was the issuance of a demand notice through a Counsel. Citing legal precedents, the High Court concluded that the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate did not require interference, and both petitions were allowed.
  
  In this judgment, the High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of jurisdiction in cases u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The court considered the location of key events, such as the issuance of cheques, transactions, and business dealings, to determine the appropriate court for the case. The High Court emphasized that the legal position on jurisdiction was well-established based on previous court decisions, including the matter of National Small Industries Corporation v/s. Hermeet Singh Paintal & Anr. and Mrs. Preetha S. Babu v/s. Voltas Ltd. & Anr. The court ultimately upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, highlighting the significance of the events related to the case in Delhi over the minor Mumbai connection of issuing a demand notice.

  ---

12345678........ 63