|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1266 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1199
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Validity of assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of opening balance of capital account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
3. Rejection of evidence explaining the credit.
4. Disallowance u/s 80L of the Act.
5. Basis of additions made by the Assessing Officer not being material found during search.
6. Opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
Validity of Assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A:
The appeal challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending it to be invalid and bad in law. The assessment was framed under section 144 of the Act due to the assessee's failure to submit required evidence, resulting in the addition of the entire opening balance as unexplained cash credit. The appellant argued that the necessary documents were under dispute and seized by the Civil Court, thus preventing their submission. The appellant sought a denovo assessment with proper opportunity for hearing, emphasizing the lack of opportunity given during the initial assessment.
Addition of Opening Balance as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The addition of &8377; 13,39,776/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act was contested by the appellant, who claimed that the evidence explaining the credit was rejected without sufficient consideration. The appellant highlighted that the opening capital balance was added erroneously without adequate opportunity for explanation. Additional evidence submitted by the appellant was not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of failure to prove reasonable cause for non-submission during the assessment proceedings.
Disallowance u/s 80L:
The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 80L of the Act amounting to &8377; 1,121/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), leading to further contention by the appellant. The appellant argued that the additions were not based on material found during the search, rendering them legally unsound.
Opportunity for the Assessee to Present Evidence:
The appellant's plea for a reasonable opportunity to present all required documents to substantiate the genuineness of the opening capital balance and other minor additions was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal. It was held that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from producing relevant documents, and the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. Consequently, the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision were set aside, directing a denovo assessment by the AO with proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Conclusion:
The appeal was considered allowed for statistical purposes, with the assessment being restored to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment in accordance with the directions provided by the Appellate Tribunal. The merits of the challenged additions were left for readjudication by the AO based on the new assessment process.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1198
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and reasoning of the arbitral tribunal's award.
2. Burden of proof and evidence for the counterclaim.
3. Application of byelaws versus the Indian Contract Act.
4. Consideration of TDS certificates as acknowledgment of liability.
5. Procedural fairness regarding the application for bifurcation of particulars.
Summary:
1. Validity and Reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal's Award:
The petitioner challenged the award u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the arbitral tribunal and appellate tribunal failed to provide reasons for allowing the respondent's counterclaim, violating section 31(3) of the Act and byelaw 255(2) of the BSE. The court found that both tribunals had recorded sufficient reasons in their awards, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim of lack of reasoning.
2. Burden of Proof and Evidence for the Counterclaim:
The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to discharge its burden of proof for the counterclaim, as no evidence was presented to prove the loss sustained. The court noted that the respondent had provided documentary evidence and contract notes, which the petitioner did not dispute. The arbitral tribunal had allowed the counterclaim based on byelaw 218(d) and 218(f), and the appellate bench upheld this decision. The court found no merit in the petitioner's submission and upheld the findings of the tribunals.
3. Application of Byelaws versus the Indian Contract Act:
The petitioner contended that byelaws 218(d) and 218(f) of the BSE were inconsistent with sections 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract Act and should not have been applied. The court held that the byelaws of the BSE are statutory in nature and would prevail over the provisions of the Contract Act. The petitioner had not raised this issue before the arbitral tribunal or the appellate bench, and thus could not raise it for the first time in this court. The court upheld the application of the byelaws by the tribunals.
4. Consideration of TDS Certificates as Acknowledgment of Liability:
The petitioner argued that TDS certificates issued by the respondent indicated acknowledgment of liability. The court referred to the judgment in S.P. Brothers Vs. Biren Ramesh Kadakia, which held that TDS certificates do not amount to acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court agreed with the tribunals' rejection of the TDS certificates as acknowledgment of liability.
5. Procedural Fairness Regarding the Application for Bifurcation of Particulars:
The petitioner claimed that the tribunals did not decide the application dated 25th November, 2010, seeking bifurcation of particulars of BSE and NSE transactions. The court found that this application was a repetition of an earlier application, which had already been decided, and the directions had been complied with by the respondent. The court held that there was no merit in the petitioner's submission regarding procedural unfairness.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the arbitration petition, upholding the awards of the arbitral tribunal and the appellate bench, and found no merit in the petitioner's submissions. There was no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1197
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of book results u/s 145(3) of the Act and sustenance of addition.
2. Admission of additional ground of appeal regarding disallowance of Rs. 40,42,634/-.
3. Deletion of addition of interest income of Rs. 15,61,615/-.
Summary:
Issue 1: Rejection of Book Results u/s 145(3) and Sustenance of Addition
The assessee company, engaged in trading goods, was subjected to a search/survey operation u/s 132(1) and 133A. The A.O. observed that the assessee was involved in providing accommodation bills, rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) and estimating income from commission at Rs. 47,20,929/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) reduced the profit rate to 0.5% from 1%, reducing the income by Rs. 23,60,464/-. The Tribunal, referencing the case of M/s Easy Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., found no cogent evidence to substantiate the allegation of providing accommodation bills and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
Issue 2: Admission of Additional Ground of Appeal
The assessee filed an additional ground of appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 40,42,634/-. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground following the Supreme Court decision in National Thermal Power Co. vs. CIT, which allows raising a legal issue at any stage if it arises from the facts on record. However, since the Tribunal deleted the entire addition made by the A.O. under the head business income, the additional ground was rejected due to the absence of material to show the allowability of the business expenditure.
Issue 3: Deletion of Addition of Interest Income
The A.O. had separately assessed interest income of Rs. 15,61,615/- without considering the interest paid by the assessee of Rs. 31,60,783/-. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition since the interest payment exceeded the interest received. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no contrary material against the CIT(A)'s findings.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the addition related to the alleged accommodation bills and rejected the additional ground of appeal regarding business expenditure. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the interest income addition.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1196
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the computation of total income, carry forward of deficit, interpretation of provisions of sec. 11, and the authority of the Assessing Officer to entertain claims made by the assessee.
Computation of Total Income:
The appeal was against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Mumbai, where the Assessing Officer raised grounds regarding the computation of total income by the assessee. The AO contended that the assessee had filed a return with a total income of Rs. Nil and did not claim any deficit. However, the CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact.
Interpretation of Provisions u/s 11:
The issue of carrying forward a deficit of Rs. 2.78 Crores by the assessee trust arose due to excess expenditure incurred. The AO rejected the claim for carrying forward the deficit, stating there is no provision in the Act for such carry forward where expenditure exceeds income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to carry forward the deficit, but the AO disagreed, citing sec. 11 provisions.
Authority of Assessing Officer:
The AO rejected the claim made by the assessee trust for carrying forward the deficit. The FAA allowed the appeal, mentioning that the issue was decided in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal. The ITAT Mumbai also referred to a previous order where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
Decision:
The ITAT Mumbai found that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the deficit based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, a calculation error was identified, and the correct amount of carry-forward deficit needed to be determined. The matter was remanded back to the AO for this purpose, and the assessee was directed to provide the necessary details.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the AO was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in open court on 23rd October 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1195
Issues involved: Application under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint based on res judicata and maintainability of suit challenging a compromise decree.
Issue 1: Res Judicata
The appellant-petitioner filed a suit seeking a declaration that a compromise decree was obtained fraudulently. The respondent argued that the suit was barred by res judicata. The Court discussed the principle of res judicata as per Section 11 of the Code, emphasizing finality of litigation and equity. It was held that for res judicata to apply, there must be sufficient pleading and records from the earlier proceeding. The Court noted that while considering an application under Order 7, rule 11, only the plaint and its annexed documents should be examined, not the defense of the defendants. Therefore, the plea of res judicata alone cannot lead to rejection of the plaint.
Issue 2: Suit challenging a compromise decree
The respondent also argued that the suit was not maintainable under Order 23, rule 3A of the Code. The Court referred to relevant judgments but found that this point was not raised in the application under Order 7, rule 11. It was deemed improper to allow a new plea at the appeal stage without giving the appellant a chance to respond. The Court set aside the order, rejected the application under Order 7, rule 11, and directed expeditious disposal of the suit without delving into the merits of the claims. The appeal was disposed of, and no costs were awarded.
Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by Harish Tandon, J., with agreement from Shubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. The Court emphasized procedural fairness and adherence to pleadings in deciding on the rejection of the plaint based on res judicata and maintainability of the suit challenging a compromise decree. The importance of not allowing new pleas at the appeal stage without proper opportunity for response was highlighted. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the suit while leaving all issues open for determination.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1194
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the claim of exemption u/s 10B of the Act, bad debt, disallowance towards contribution to provident fund and ESI, and disallowance of bad debts.
Claim of Exemption u/s 10B:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin heard appeals from both the revenue and the taxpayer against the same order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) for the assessment year 2005-06. The revenue's appeal concerned the claim of exemption u/s 10B of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had set aside a previous order and directed a reconsideration due to lack of details. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the assessing officer for reconsideration, along with the claim for the assessment year 1999-2000.
Bad Debt Issue:
Regarding the taxpayer's appeal on bad debt, it was argued that the amount due from a sister concern was written off as there was no chance of recovery, claiming it as a business loss u/s 37 of the Act. The assessing officer disallowed the claim, stating it did not fall under section 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that the conditions of section 36(2) were not satisfied, and the claim was rightly denied.
Disallowed Contribution to Provident Fund and ESI:
The next issue concerned the disallowance of a contribution towards provident fund and ESI. The taxpayer claimed it was a statutory liability, but the assessing officer and Commissioner of Income-tax(A) disagreed. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the assessing officer for further consideration, emphasizing the need for verification of payment details.
Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of various bad debts due to the lack of material to satisfy the conditions under section 36(2) of the Act. The taxpayer failed to provide necessary details, leading to the confirmation of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)'s decision.
Claim of Bad Debt Amount:
The Tribunal remanded the issue of a specific bad debt claim back to the assessing officer for re-examination, in line with the reconsideration of the exemption u/s 10B for the assessment year 1999-2000. The taxpayer's claim for this amount was to be decided afresh after considering the related issues.
Levy of Interest u/s 234B:
Lastly, the taxpayer raised a ground regarding the levy of interest u/s 234B, emphasizing the correct computation of interest. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to compute the interest correctly in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, while that of the taxpayer was partly allowed, with specific issues remitted back to the assessing officer for further examination and decision.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1193
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The legal judgment presented involves the following core legal questions: - Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was legal and valid.
- Whether the addition of Rs. 20,01,027 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act was justified, considering the alleged lack of applicability of Section 69 to the case and the explanations provided by the assessee.
- Whether the specific additions made under Section 69 for various deposits in the bank account were justified, given the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 148 - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 148 of the Income Tax Act allows the tax authorities to issue a notice for reassessment if they have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The issue of notice under Section 148 was not pressed by the appellant during the proceedings, leading to its dismissal.
- Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 was not contested, and thus the issue was dismissed as not pressed.
Issue 2: Addition under Section 69 - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained investments, where the assessee is unable to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of investments, allowing the assessing officer to add such amounts to the income.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined whether the assessee adequately explained the source of deposits in the bank account. The assessee claimed the deposits were from professional services rendered, but failed to provide sufficient evidence.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's explanations were found lacking due to the absence of verifiable details of clients or transactions. The surrender of peak credit and unexplained investments by the assessee was noted.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 69, considering the lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee regarding the deposits.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's argument of providing professional services was not substantiated with credible evidence, leading to the rejection of the explanation.
- Conclusion: The addition under Section 69 was upheld due to insufficient evidence and explanation from the assessee.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "It is settled position of law that for any cash credit, three ingredients have to be proved i.e. (i) identity of the party, (ii) genuineness of the transaction and (iii) capacity of such party to give such money."
- Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to provide satisfactory evidence and explanation for unexplained investments under Section 69.
- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed the issue regarding the notice under Section 148 as not pressed. The addition under Section 69 was upheld due to the lack of credible evidence and explanation from the assessee.
The judgment highlights the importance of providing verifiable evidence and maintaining records to substantiate claims of professional income and the source of deposits, especially when dealing with unexplained investments under the Income Tax Act.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1192
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer order u/s 127(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the transfer.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under s. 127 of the Act.
Summary:
1. Legality of the transfer order u/s 127(2) of the IT Act, 1961:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 2nd April 2012, passed by respondent No. 2, transferring the cases of various assessees from the AO at Raipur to the AO at Visakhapatnam. The transfer was purportedly for "co-ordinated investigation" following a search and seizure operation conducted on 19th Aug. 2011. The petitioners argued that the transfer was illegal and arbitrary as it did not satisfy the requirements of s. 127(2) of the Act.
2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the transfer:
The court noted that the show-cause notice proposed the transfer for "co-ordinated investigation" but did not provide specific reasons why such an investigation could not be conducted at Raipur. The court cited several precedents, including Sagarmal Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. CBDT, V.K. Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT, and Vijayasanthi Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Chief CIT, which emphasized that vague and general reasons like "co-ordinated investigation" are insufficient. The reasons must be specific and communicated to the assessee to allow for an effective representation.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under s. 127 of the Act:
The court highlighted that s. 127 requires two essential aspects: a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the recording of reasons for the transfer. In this case, the reasons were not adequately communicated to the petitioners, and the phrase "co-ordinated investigation" was deemed too vague. The court also noted that additional reasons mentioned in the respondents' return were not disclosed to the petitioners or the court, violating the principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned transfer orders for not being in conformity with s. 127 of the Act and allowed the writ petitions. No order as to costs was made.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1191
Issues Involved:1. Deletion of advertisement expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) using the Resale Price Method (RPM) for international transactions. Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Advertisement Expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the expenditure of Rs. 2,02,86,576/- incurred on advertisement under the head Media-Technical, arguing it created a benefit of enduring nature and thus is capital in nature. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading cosmetic products, contended the expenditure was revenue in nature due to the competitive market requiring continuous advertisement. The CIT(A) followed the decision in Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd and ITAT's decision in DCIT vs. Metro Shoes (P) Ltd, holding the expenditure as revenue in nature. The ITAT upheld this view, noting the similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in AY 2003-04, emphasizing the purpose and business realities over the "enduring benefit" test. Issue 2: Determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) Using the Resale Price Method (RPM)The Revenue disputed the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the Resale Price Method (RPM) for determining the ALP of the assessee's international transactions concerning imports of finished goods. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had applied the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) instead, citing the assessee's consistent losses, product differences, and insufficient similarity in functions performed, assets employed, and risks assumed. The CIT(A) upheld the RPM as the most appropriate method, deleting the TPO's addition of Rs. 4,55,34,000/-. The ITAT agreed with this, referencing the ITAT's decision in the assessee's case for AY 2003-04, which supported the RPM for distribution activities where goods are purchased from AEs and sold to unrelated parties without further processing. The ITAT found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground. Conclusion:The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the ITAT upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1190
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves determining whether the income earned from letting out buildings and warehouses should be classified as "Income from Business" or "Income from House Property." Additionally, it addresses the issue of whether an advance paid to a Director should be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Issue 1 - Classification of Income:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai considered three appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s order, which allowed the assessee's appeals for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2007-08. The primary dispute was whether the income from letting out buildings and warehouses by the assessee should be categorized as "Income from Business" or "Income from House Property."
The Revenue contended that the income should be treated as "Income from House Property" based on agreements with lessees and the provision of amenities without separate charges. They relied on relevant case law to support their argument.
In contrast, the assessee argued that its main objective, as per the Memorandum of Association, was to establish warehouses and carry on the business of warehousemen. They presented financial records and documents to demonstrate that their primary source of income was from leasing out godowns and warehouses, supporting the classification as "Income from Business."
After reviewing the submissions and relevant case law, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the income derived from letting out warehouses and godowns should be considered "Business Income" rather than "Income from House Property."
Issue 2 - Deemed Dividend to Director:
The second issue pertained to an advance paid to one of the Directors of the company, which the Revenue argued should be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Director had received substantial funds from the company without interest, and the Revenue contended that this amount should be classified as deemed dividend.
The assessee defended against this claim, stating that the alleged deemed dividend could not be assessed in the hands of the company. The CIT(A) had already made a ruling on this issue, which the Revenue failed to challenge effectively.
Upon examination of the documents and arguments presented, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this matter.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both the classification of income from letting out buildings and warehouses and the treatment of the advance to the Director as deemed dividend.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1189
Issues Involved:
1. Barred by Limitation
2. Absolute Privilege
3. No Cause of Action
Summary:
1. Barred by Limitation:
The defendants argued that the suit is barred by the law of limitation u/s Article 75 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a one-year period for filing a defamation suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in March 2009 based on defamatory notices dated 28.9.2007 and 9.10.2007, and affidavits filed in November 2008. The court held that the limitation period started from the dates of the notices and the petition dated 1.2.2008, making the suit filed after one year barred by limitation.
2. Absolute Privilege:
The defendants contended that the statements made in the affidavits are protected by Absolute Privilege, as they were part of judicial proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Society. The court reviewed the law on defamation and Absolute Privilege, concluding that statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are immune from defamation actions. The Registrar's proceedings were deemed quasi-judicial, thus the statements in the affidavits were Absolutely Privileged and not actionable.
3. No Cause of Action:
The defendants argued that the plaint disclosed no cause of action as the proceedings before the Registrar were pending. The court found that since the statements in the affidavits were Absolutely Privileged, the issue of cause of action was irrelevant. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law.
Conclusion:
The application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the suit was dismissed as barred by law due to limitation and Absolute Privilege.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1188
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Ld CIT(A) regarding addition of Membership Fees and disallowance of depreciation without hearing.
Membership Fees Issue:
The assessee, a Partnership firm, challenged the addition of Rs. 16,02,000 as Membership Fees by the Assessing Officer. The firm contended that this fee was necessary for carrying on business activities and hence should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disagreed, considering the benefits to be enjoyed over a long period. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing a similar case regarding depreciation on a BSE card. However, the Tribunal, after considering various judgments, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the admission fee was a revenue expenditure necessary for conducting business effectively and not resulting in an enduring benefit. The Tribunal highlighted that the payment was akin to a license fee, essential for business operations, and not creating any new asset or increasing profit-making capabilities. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the admission fee was a revenue expenditure.
Depreciation Disallowance Issue:
The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,60,200 without providing a hearing to the appellant. The Ld CIT(A) upheld this disallowance along with the addition of Membership Fees. However, as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the Membership Fees issue, the grounds related to depreciation disallowance became infructuous and did not require further adjudication.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the addition of Membership Fees and rendering the issues related to depreciation disallowance irrelevant. The decision was based on the understanding that the payment of admission fee was a necessary revenue expenditure for conducting business activities effectively, as it did not result in any enduring benefit but was essential for carrying on the business operations.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1187
Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Summary:
The appellant-assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the judgment of the Appellate Commissioner, which was delayed by 791 days. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation despite the appellant providing a supporting affidavit to explain the delay. The appellant argued that the delay should have been condoned due to valid reasons.
The affidavit filed by the appellant's General Manager explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to difficulties in obtaining the necessary documents for preparing the grounds of appeal against the Commissioner's order received in 2007. The Company faced challenges in tracing the required papers, leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
The High Court acknowledged the significant delay in filing the appeal but emphasized that courts tend to view delays leniently when valid explanations are provided. In this case, the Court found the appellant's explanation for the delay to be satisfactory and believed that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Consequently, the High Court reversed the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal, directing the Tribunal to hear the assessee's appeal on its merits.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1186
Issues involved: Challenge to penalty imposed under FERA Act, delay in communication of order, applicability of FEMA Act, limitation period under Section 49(3) of FEMA Act.
The writ petition challenges a penalty imposed on the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA Act) due to a delay in communication of the order. The main contention is the applicability of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA Act) and the limitation period under Section 49(3) of the FEMA Act.
Challenge to Penalty under FERA Act:
The petitioner was penalized for obtaining foreign exchange for import of goods but failing to provide evidence of actual imports and not complying with regulations under FERA Act. The order imposing the penalty was communicated after a significant delay, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Applicability of FEMA Act and Limitation Period:
The challenge is based on the repeal of FERA Act and the enforcement of FEMA Act, which requires contraventions under FERA Act to be addressed within two years from the commencement of FEMA Act. The petitioner argues that since no notice of contravention was served before the impugned order, the proceedings are invalid. However, the court notes that the alleged contravention was taken notice of before the expiry of the limitation period specified in Section 49(3) of the FEMA Act.
Court Decision:
The High Court dismisses the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the available appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 19 of the FEMA Act. The court refrains from making a conclusive decision on the limitation issue, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to exhaust statutory remedies.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1185
Issues Involved:
1. Non-reduction of interest paid from interest received for deduction u/s 80IB.
2. Exclusion of amounts written back for deduction u/s 80IB.
3. Exclusion of trading profit for deduction u/s 80IB.
4. Non-allowance of depreciation and expenses of Thapoda Unit.
5. Sustaining part addition out of total addition made by A.O. out of claim of depreciation.
6. Addition out of sale commission expenses and non-admission of submissions and documents.
7. Surplus on sale of shares assessable as business income vs. capital gains.
Summary:
Issue 1: Non-reduction of interest paid from interest received for deduction u/s 80IB
The assessee contested the A.O.'s decision to exclude gross interest received for computing deduction u/s 80IB. The Tribunal, referencing ITAT Mumbai and Supreme Court rulings, directed the A.O. to exclude only net interest income for deduction purposes. The ground of appeal was allowed.
Issue 2: Exclusion of amounts written back for deduction u/s 80IB
The assessee challenged the non-grant of deduction u/s 80IB on amounts written back and assessed as income u/s 41(1). The Tribunal, following ITAT Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam decisions, directed not to exclude the sum of Rs. 59,376/- for computing the deduction. The ground of appeal was allowed.
Issue 3 & 4: Exclusion of trading profit for deduction u/s 80IB
The assessee challenged the exclusion of trading profit for deduction u/s 80IB, arguing that the entire income arose from manufacturing surgical kits. The Tribunal held that the surgical kits, including assembled items, are manufactured products eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. The A.O.'s and CIT(A)'s exclusions were deemed unjustified. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
Issue 5: Non-allowance of depreciation and expenses of Thapoda Unit
The assessee contested the disallowance of depreciation and administrative expenses of Rs. 19,76,740/-. The Tribunal found no adverse observation regarding the expenses in the audited financial statements and directed the A.O. to delete the addition and grant further relief of Rs. 17,76,740/-. The ground of appeal was allowed.
Issue 6: Sustaining part addition out of total addition made by A.O. out of claim of depreciation
The assessee challenged the non-grant of depreciation on certain asset additions. The Tribunal, noting that the assets were used for business and recorded in regular books, directed the A.O. to grant depreciation as claimed. The ground of appeal was allowed.
Issue 7: Addition out of sale commission expenses and non-admission of submissions and documents
The assessee claimed relief on disallowed commission expenses. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of payment and TDS, found the disallowance unjustified. The ground of appeal was allowed.
Issue 8: Surplus on sale of shares assessable as business income vs. capital gains
The assessee contested the classification of surplus on share sales as business income. The Tribunal, referencing various judicial precedents, held that the surplus should be assessed as capital gains, not business income. The ground of appeal was allowed.
Revenue's Appeal:
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to allow deduction u/s 80IB for Thapoda Unit's business income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the sales at Thapoda were for goods manufactured at Amravati and eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1184
Excise duty paid need not be included in the valuation of the closing stock and non-inclusion would be a revenue neutral and would have no impact upon the tax payable - Held that:- In case of an assessee, where common order is passed in respect of more than one assessment year, which involves common issues even if in one of the assessment years the tax effect is more than ₹ 10 lakhs, irrespective of the fact that in respect of other assessment years which is part of the common order, the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, the revenue is entitled to file appeal even in respect such assessment years where the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. However, in case where there is no common order and an order is passed only in respect of an assessment, year and the tax effect therein is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, the revenue cannot file the appeal.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1183
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12-AA (3) of the Income-tax Act?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is eligible for continued registration despite not fulfilling the requirement of being a charitable institution?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the decisions relied upon by the CIT while canceling the registration of the assessee society?
Issue 1:
The respondent-assessee was granted registration under Section 12A of the Act as a charitable institution. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax disallowed the claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, leading to the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal and restored the registration, stating that the cancellation based on Section 10(23C)(vi) was not sufficient grounds for cancellation under Section 12A. The Tribunal also noted that the deduction under Section 11 had been allowed to the assessee for certain assessment years.
Issue 2:
The counsel for the Revenue argued that as the institution was established solely for educational purposes and was profit-earning, exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was rightly denied, making it cease to be a charitable institution. However, the Court found that the trust had multiple objects, including educational development, moral education, and promoting Indian culture and arts. The Court held that the assessee could claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) without fulfilling the conditions of Section 11, and since the conditions of Section 11 were not mentioned in the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal was correct in restoring the registration.
Issue 3:
The Court concluded that the Tribunal had rightly restored the registration based on the benefit of exemption/deduction under Section 11 allowed to the assessee in previous assessment years. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.
In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to restore the registration of the assessee, emphasizing that the cancellation based on Section 10(23C)(vi) was not sufficient grounds under Section 12A. The Court also clarified that the assessee could claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) without fulfilling Section 11 conditions, and since the Commissioner's order did not mention Section 11 conditions, the restoration of registration was justified.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1182
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the cancellation of registration u/s 12-AA can be justified based on an order passed u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act?
2. Whether the cancellation of registration u/s 12A was justified due to the assessee not engaging in charitable activities?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering relevant decisions while cancelling the registration of the assessee society?
Issue 1:
The appeal was filed u/s 260-A of the Income-tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that registration u/s 12-AA cannot be cancelled based on an order u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the Chief Commissioner, as these are independent proceedings. The respondent was granted registration u/s 12A as a charitable institution, but the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) was disallowed by the Chief Commissioner. The Commissioner of Income Tax then cancelled the registration u/s 12A. The Tribunal restored the registration, stating that the proceedings u/s 10(23C)(vi) are separate and cannot be the sole ground for cancellation of registration u/s 12A.
Issue 2:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had other objects besides educational purposes, such as promoting Indian culture and cottage industries. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) without needing registration u/s 12A. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had been allowed deductions under Section 11 for certain assessment years, indicating compliance with charitable activities.
Issue 3:
The Tribunal did not consider the decisions relied upon by the CIT while cancelling the registration. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the CIT did not mention any non-compliance with Section 11 conditions for charitable institutions. The High Court agreed that the Tribunal rightly restored the registration based on the allowed exemptions and deductions under Section 11 for the relevant assessment years.
In conclusion, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1181
Issues involved:
Challenging correctness of assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2008-09 - Tax withholding obligations for payment to Triginta Travels and Tours, Sweden - Disallowance of loss incurred for Europe tour organized for Vasavdutta Cement Ltd.
Tax withholding obligations for payment to Triginta Travels and Tours, Sweden:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of &8377; 90,65,000 made to a Sweden based entity due to non-deduction of tax at source u/s 195. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating the income was taxable in India. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the taxability under the India-Sweden DTAA. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that tax deduction at source can only be invoked when the recipient has a primary tax liability in India.
Loss incurred for Europe tour organized for Vasavdutta Cement Ltd:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss of &8377; 8,40,261 incurred on the Europe tour for Vasavdutta Cement Ltd, stating there should have been no loss as it was a group concern. The ITAT disagreed, stating that it is normal for associated entities to incur losses on some transactions. The ITAT found no merit in the disallowance and deleted the same, emphasizing that the escalation of costs leading to the loss was a normal business phenomenon.
In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, remitting the tax withholding issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and deleting the disallowance of the loss incurred on the Europe tour.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1180
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT (A) regarding deletion of addition for renovation expenses and direction to refer valuation of property to Valuation Cell.
Issue 1: Renovation Expenses
The assessee, a salaried employee, sold a flat for Rs. 20.50 lakhs, while Stamp Duty Authorities valued it at Rs. 30,75,744/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed Short Term Capital Gains at Rs. 11,44,044/- under section 50C of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of Rs. 4,05,975/- for renovation and repair charges due to lack of proof. The CIT (A) allowed the grievance, citing the need for the AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell before adopting the Fair Market Value. The CIT (A) held that the AO should not have disallowed the claim for renovation and repairs when genuine expenditure was not doubted and relevant bills were submitted. The Revenue appealed against this decision.
Issue 2: Valuation of Property
The CIT (A) directed the AO to refer the valuation of the property to the Valuation Cell, as per section 50C(2) of the Act. The CIT (A) relied on the decision of ITAT in a similar case and held that the AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Cell before adopting the Stamp Duty Authorities' value. The Revenue challenged this decision before the ITAT.
The ITAT found that the issue of valuation was covered in favor of the assessee by a previous Tribunal order. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. Regarding the renovation expenses, the ITAT noted that the assessee had submitted proper bills and there was no incriminating material to doubt the claim. The ITAT found the AO's rejection of the renovation expenses claim unjustified, as the bills were in order and the AO did not conduct further verification. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision on both issues.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition for renovation expenses and direct the valuation of the property to the Valuation Cell.
........
|
9911796707
