|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1817 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1743
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether payments made by an international airline to a service provider for lounging and catering services constitute 'rent' under section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Nature of Services and Interpretation of 'Rent' under Section 194-I
The primary issue in the case was to determine whether the payments made by the airline to the service provider for lounging and catering services should be classified as 'rent' under section 194-I of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the payments qualified as 'rent' due to the lounging services provided to premium customers. However, the Tribunal observed that the services provided were a combination of lounging and catering services, akin to a guest house providing both boarding and lodging facilities. The Tribunal concluded that the payments for lounging services constituted 'rent' under section 194-I, while payments for food and beverages were not considered as 'rent' but as part of a composite service agreement under section 194C.
Issue 2: Case Law Analysis
The Tribunal analyzed case laws related to payments made by airlines to airport authorities for landing and parking charges. While the Delhi High Court considered such payments as 'rent' under section 194-I, the Madras High Court held a different view based on the nature of services provided. The Tribunal emphasized the need to determine the real character of services contracted for and concluded that the composite services in the present case did not fall under the definition of 'rent' but were covered under a generalized contractual category under section 194C.
Issue 3: Application of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) Rates
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had applied a TDS rate of 20% for all years, while the revised rate post-2009 was 10%. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of correctly applying TDS rates as per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for all years, affirming that the payments made by the airline for lounging services constituted 'rent' under section 194-I, while payments for catering services were part of a composite service agreement falling under section 194C. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for the Revenue to consider all relevant facts and provisions while determining tax liabilities.
Judgment Date:
The order was pronounced in the open court on November 27, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1742
Issues involved: Assessment of agricultural income u/s 2,75,000/- as 'income from other sources' and appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02.
Summary:
The assessee, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of petrol, diesel, and plying trucks, also had agricultural income of &8377; 6,75,000/-. However, due to lack of evidence to prove the nature of agricultural operations, the income was assessed as 'income from other sources'. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) called for a remand report, which highlighted the absence of evidence supporting the agricultural income claim. The Assessing Officer estimated agricultural income at &8377; 1,50,000/- and treated the balance as 'income from other sources'.
The First Appellate Authority found discrepancies in the assessee's capital account and lack of evidence for unexplained investments or expenditures. The Commissioner allowed the claim, leading to an appeal by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal restricted agricultural income to &8377; 4,00,000/- and treated the rest as 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the assessee, arguing that the agricultural income should not have been restricted. The High Court reviewed the orders of the Assessing Officer, First Appellate Authority, and Tribunal, noting the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to prove the agricultural income. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the assessee's failure to substantiate the claim with proper materials.
In conclusion, the High Court rejected the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's order and dismissing the Tax Case (Appeals) without costs. The Court highlighted the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims of agricultural income, as required by law.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1741
Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Deletion of addition u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary:Issue 1: Delay in Filing the AppealThe Revenue's appeal was time-barred by a day's delay. The delay was attributed to the approval papers being received late on the last date for filing the appeal. The assessee did not oppose the condonation plea, and the delay was condoned. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition u/s 69The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to direct the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition of Rs. 34,86,141/- u/s 69 as unexplained expenditure. The AO had added this amount to the assessee's income due to unexplained credit card payments. The assessee argued that a friend, Shri Neelamegan, had used his credit cards and repaid the amounts, which was supported by bank statements and other evidence. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and directed the deletion of the addition. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity for the AO to verify the evidence and submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s findings violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence if necessary. Both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objections were allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 27th of November, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1740
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2 Crores on a protective basis for A.Y. 2004-05.
2. Double addition of Rs. 2 Crores for A.Y. 2005-06.
3. Addition of Rs. 2,00,50,000 on a protective basis for A.Y. 2006-07.
4. Double addition of Rs. 3,14,83,870 for A.Y. 2006-07.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 2 Crores on a Protective Basis for A.Y. 2004-05
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 2 Crores made on a protective basis by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and confirmed by the CIT(A). The addition was based on the assessee's statement during a search operation u/s 132(4), where he admitted to earning consultancy fees for helping students gain admission to Bharati Vidyapeeth (BV). The Tribunal found no incriminating material or documentary evidence suggesting the assessee earned Rs. 2 Crores in F.Y. 2003-04. The statement was retracted, and the documents seized did not relate to F.Y. 2003-04. The Tribunal held that no addition could be made merely on surmises or presumptions and deleted the addition of Rs. 2 Crores.
Issue 2: Double Addition of Rs. 2 Crores for A.Y. 2005-06
The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 2 Crores for A.Y. 2005-06 resulted in double taxation, as the entire cash of Rs. 3,14,83,870 found during the search was already taxed in A.Y. 2006-07. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee had declared Rs. 2 Crores in A.Y. 2005-06 and Rs. 1.25 Crores in A.Y. 2006-07, totaling Rs. 3.25 Crores, which was more than the cash seized. The Tribunal found no justification for the double addition and deleted the addition of Rs. 2 Crores for A.Y. 2005-06.
Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 2,00,50,000 on a Protective Basis for A.Y. 2006-07
The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 2,00,50,000 on a protective basis based on documents seized from the assessee, indicating consultancy fees collected from 146 students. The CIT(A) sustained the addition for 34 students who were given admissions. The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted to using his position to help students gain admission and collect fees, and the documents supported this. The Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 2,00,50,000 on a substantive basis in the hands of the assessee, as the same addition was deleted in the case of Bharati Vidyapeeth.
Issue 4: Double Addition of Rs. 3,14,83,870 for A.Y. 2006-07
The A.O. added Rs. 3,14,83,870 on a protective basis for A.Y. 2006-07, which was the cash seized from the assessee's cabin. The assessee had already declared Rs. 2 Crores in A.Y. 2005-06 and Rs. 1.25 Crores in A.Y. 2006-07. The Tribunal found that the A.O. made a double addition of the same income, which was already declared and taxed in the respective assessment years. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,14,83,870 for A.Y. 2006-07.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for A.Ys. 2004-05 and 2005-06 and partly allowed the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, deleting the double additions and sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,00,50,000 on a substantive basis.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1739
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Deletion of addition of deemed income u/s.2(22)(e)
2. Allowability of depreciation losses for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10
Deletion of addition of deemed income u/s.2(22)(e):
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing, faced an addition of deemed income u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee, but the ITAT found that the conditions of section 2(22)(e) were not met. The ITAT emphasized that for section 2(22)(e) to apply, the shareholder must have substantial interest in the concern. The ITAT referred to legal precedents and held that the deemed dividend can only be taxed in the hands of a person who is both a beneficial and registered shareholder. As the necessary ingredients were lacking, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of deemed income.
Allowability of depreciation losses:
The second issue pertained to the allowability of depreciation losses for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10. The Authorized Representative pointed out that the Assessing Officer failed to mention the depreciation losses for A.Y. 2007-08. The CIT(A) agreed with this contention and directed the Assessing Officer to specify the depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2007-08 while implementing the order. The ITAT upheld this decision, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals for both years regarding the depreciation losses.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed both appeals of the revenue, emphasizing the importance of meeting the conditions of section 2(22)(e) for the taxation of deemed income and ensuring proper documentation of depreciation losses for the respective assessment years.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1738
Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of vital documents by the sponsoring authority.
2. Non-consideration of the show cause notice by the detaining authority.
3. Delay in passing and executing the detention order.
4. Advisory Board's consideration of additional documents.
5. Opportunity to adduce evidence before the Advisory Board.
Summary:
1. Suppression of Vital Documents:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not consider the bail order from Andhra Pradesh, which had conditions that could have prevented the detenu from engaging in prejudicial activities. The Court found that the conditions in the bail order did not prevent the detenu from continuing illegal activities and thus, the bail order was not a crucial document that could render the detention order unconstitutional.
2. Non-Consideration of Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice dated 2.5.2013 was not placed before the detaining authority. The Court examined the relevance of the show cause notice and concluded that it only summarized materials already available in the files considered by the detaining authority. Therefore, the omission of this document did not affect the validity of the detention order.
3. Delay in Passing and Executing the Detention Order:
The petitioner claimed there was an inordinate delay in issuing and executing the detention order. The Court reviewed the explanation provided by the respondents, which detailed the procedural steps and efforts to locate the detenu. The Court found the explanation satisfactory and held that the delay did not invalidate the detention order.
4. Advisory Board's Consideration of Additional Documents:
The petitioner argued that the Advisory Board considered the show cause notice, which was not before the detaining authority. The Court noted that u/s 8(c) of the COFEPOSA Act, the Advisory Board is empowered to call for additional information. Since the show cause notice was served to both the detenu and his advocate, the Court found no violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Opportunity to Adduce Evidence Before the Advisory Board:
The petitioner claimed that the detenu was not allowed to adduce oral evidence before the Advisory Board. The Court observed that there was no specific averment or evidence that a request to adduce evidence was made and denied by the Advisory Board. Therefore, the Court did not accept this contention.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The detention order was upheld as valid and constitutional.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1737
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment and additions made by AO.
2. Disallowance of interest.
3. Unexplained investment.
4. Benefit of disclosure/additions made in the firm of M/s. Tirupati Construction Co.
Summary:
1. Validity of Assessment and Additions:
- The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment and additions made by the AO for all the assessment years, claiming the orders were "wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice." These grounds were deemed general in nature and required no adjudication.
2. Disallowance of Interest:
- Assessment Year 2003-2004: The disallowance of interest of Rs. 26,511/- was upheld as the assessee could not establish that the borrowed funds were used for business purposes.
- Assessment Year 2004-2005: The disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,01,812/- was upheld for similar reasons as in the previous year.
- Assessment Year 2005-2006: The disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,26,688/- was upheld, following the reasoning from earlier years.
- Assessment Year 2006-2007: No specific disallowance of interest was mentioned for this year.
3. Unexplained Investment:
- Assessment Year 2003-2004: The addition of Rs. 73,340/- was deleted as the sale of gold ornaments by the assessee's wife covered this amount.
- Assessment Year 2004-2005: The addition of Rs. 5,78,818/- was partly allowed with a relief of Rs. 1,72,280/- based on the assessee's 12% share in the firm M/s. Tirupati Construction Co.
- Assessment Year 2005-2006: The addition of Rs. 5,48,088/- was partly allowed with a relief of Rs. 80,490/- based on the assessee's 12% share in the firm.
- Assessment Year 2006-2007: The addition of Rs. 1,63,845/- was partly allowed with a relief of Rs. 69,260/- based on the assessee's share in the firm.
4. Benefit of Disclosure/Additions in M/s. Tirupati Construction Co.:
- The assessee claimed telescopic benefit of the additions made in the firm M/s. Tirupati Construction Co. for unexplained investments in the construction of a bungalow. The Tribunal allowed the benefit to the extent of the assessee's share in the firm's profit and loss account for the relevant assessment years.
Conclusion:
- The appeals were partly allowed, with specific reliefs granted for unexplained investments based on the assessee's share in the firm M/s. Tirupati Construction Co. The disallowance of interest was upheld across the relevant assessment years.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1736
The Supreme Court of India admitted the case and issued a notice for stay returnable on 20th January, 2014. Dasti is permitted. (Citation: 2013 (11) TMI 1736 - SC)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1735
Issues involved: Disallowance of amortization of premium paid on Govt. Securities under HTM category as capital expenditure.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-I, Pune, for A.Y. 2009-10. The main issue was the disallowance of Rs. 13,50,000 on account of amortization of premium paid on Government Securities held under HTM Category, categorized as capital expenditure. The Authorized Representative pointed out that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee by ITAT, Pune Bench in another case. The Tribunal observed that cooperative banks are now required to be assessed as normal banking companies due to changes in section 80P. The RBI guidelines mandate the classification of investment portfolios into HTM, HFT, and AFS categories, with specific valuation norms for each category. The CBDT instruction clarified the treatment of investments under different categories. Previous ITAT decisions supported the allowance of premium amortization as revenue expenditure for banks. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow Rs. 13,50,000 on account of amortization premium paid on Govt. Securities held under HTM category based on similar reasoning.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the decision was pronounced on November 27, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1734
Issues:
The issue involved in the judgment is whether the recipient of GTA service is liable to pay Service Tax when the provider of the service has already paid the tax.
Summary:
Issue 1: Liability of recipient for Service Tax payment
The appellant filed an appeal against the order confirming the demand of Service Tax on the ground that as the recipient of GTA service, they are liable to pay the tax. The appellant contended that they had already paid the tax to the service provider, who in turn paid it to the Revenue, and the appellant had availed credit for the same. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the appellant argued that the demand was not sustainable.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Finance Act provisions
The Revenue argued that as per the Finance Act, the recipient is indeed liable to pay Service Tax for GTA service, and if the provider has already paid it, the recipient can seek a refund. However, the Tribunal found that once the Revenue accepted the Service Tax from the service provider, it cannot be demanded again from the recipient. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
(Separate Judgment by Judge S.S. Kang)
The judgment by Judge S.S. Kang concluded that the demand of Service Tax from the recipient of GTA service was not sustainable when the tax had already been paid by the service provider and accepted by the Revenue. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Finance Act and previous Tribunal rulings.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1733
Issues involved: Assessment of depreciation on the cost of Windmill, apportionment of depreciation between civil work and Windmill, validity of notice u/s 153C, disallowance of depreciation on civil work.
Assessment of Depreciation on Windmill:
The dispute in the case revolved around the depreciation claimed on the cost of a Windmill. The Assessing Officer recalculated the depreciation for the assessment years, reducing the claim due to the inclusion of civil work cost. The CIT(A) partially allowed relief, attributing 40% of the civil work cost to the foundation of the Windmill for higher depreciation and 60% for buildings/roads at a lower rate. Both the Revenue and the assessee appealed this decision.
Apportionment of Depreciation:
The Tribunal considered the cost of foundation of the Windmill as an integral part of the Windmill's cost based on previous judgments. However, the exact allocation of the civil work cost was disputed. The Tribunal decided to apportion 60% of the cost to the foundation of the Windmill for higher depreciation and 40% to other civil works for lower depreciation, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Validity of Notice u/s 153C and Disallowance of Depreciation:
The Cross-objections raised concerns about the validity of the notice u/s 153C and the disallowance of depreciation on civil work without seized material. These grounds were withdrawn during the hearing and dismissed accordingly.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objections. The decision on depreciation apportionment applied to all related appeals and cross-objections. The order was pronounced on 29th November 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1732
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order u/s 143(3) for AY 2009-10: 1. Rejection of claim u/s 80IB(11A) of Rs. 1,46,564. 2. Non-allowance of interest paid on bank overdraft of Rs. 1,93,691. 3. Addition of Rs. 12,00,000 on alleged advances given by assessee.
1. Rejection of claim u/s 80IB(11A): Assessee engaged in handling, storage, and transportation of food grains claimed deduction u/s 80IB(11A) for income from warehousing. AO rejected claim due to lack of transportation facility. ITAT found assessee had warehouse and storage facilities, transportation was hired. Directed AO to re-decide after considering actual transportation undertaken.
2. Non-allowance of interest on bank overdraft: AO added Rs. 1,93,691 as interest received on bank deposits not disclosed by assessee. Assessee argued loan used for warehouse construction, not accounted for against interest receivable from bank. ITAT directed AO to verify if borrowing was from FDRs and adjust interest income accordingly.
3. Addition of advances given by assessee: AO added Rs. 12,00,000 as interest earned on money lending business accepted during survey u/s 133A. ITAT directed AO to restrict addition by computing interest income at 12% instead of 18% due to prevailing market rates.
The appeal by the assessee was allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1731
Assessee claiming deduction u/s 80IC - AO disallowed u/s 80AC - Delay of one day due to technical reasons - Return filed on 01-10-2009 , Due date for filing was 30-09-2009 - HELD THAT- The delay is not because of any lapse on the part of assessee but due to technical reasons in uploading the return electronically and due to delay of few hours in getting connectivity. The Courts have held that due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4).
Also, in a similar case, the ITAT condoned the delay of 74 days in filing of the return and permitted the assessee to avail deduction u/s. 80IC in [2012 (6) TMI 40 - ITAT HYDERABAD].
Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1730
Notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act having been issued after the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year and the assessment made consequent thereto is valid or not? - No time limit for issuance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act - HELD THAT - There is absolutely no restriction on the part of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 142(1) before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year as has been held by the CIT (A). The provisions of section 142(1) of the Act do not provide any such restriction, after the insertion of the proviso to section 142(1) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-1990. The notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act in the instant case is valid and consequently the assessment order passed cannot be held to be invalid in law. Decision against assessee.
Cash deposit made by the assessee - He failed to substantiate his claim that the deposit was made out of the earlier withdrawals from SBI - Unexplained investment in terms of section 69 - No valid reason as to why he kept so much cash with him for over a period of one year when he was holding a bank account. - HELD THAT - In the present case the assessee has failed to prove the source of deposit with valid reasons and proper evidence. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 6,50,000/-. Accordingly, ITAT upheld the order of the CIT (A) by dismissing the ground raised by the assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1729
Issues involved: Consideration of applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 seeking directions from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, interim relief pending consideration of applications, confirmation of interim order, and disposal of petitions.
In the judgment, the petitions were taken up for disposal after being listed for considering applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013. The petitions sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to hear and dispose of certain applications expeditiously, along with other reliefs deemed fit by the Court. The petitioners had filed applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking interim directions against specific respondents, which had not been considered or granted any relief. This led the petitioners to approach the High Court for relief.
The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted the prayers in the petitions and the situation where the applications filed by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal were pending consideration. An ad-interim order was passed by the High Court in aid of the final consideration of the application pending before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the application must be considered and disposed of by the Tribunal in accordance with the law. To protect the rights of the petitioners, the interim order was confirmed to benefit them until the applications were decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the applications expeditiously within its own time frame. The Court clarified that the directions sought in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 would not be considered by the High Court, and the petitioners could raise any remaining grievances before the Tribunal for proper consideration.
Conclusively, the petitions were disposed of in accordance with the above directions, leading to the disposal of the applications in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 as well.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1728
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 73 of the Finance Act regarding limitation for issuing demand notice and waiver of service tax.
In the judgment by the Kerala High Court, the appellant, a registered Society owned by the Government of Kerala, Center For Development of Imaging Technology (C-DIT), challenged an order refusing waiver of total service tax and directing pre-deposit. The Tribunal had opined that the demand was not time-barred without discussing the date of demand notice and relevant provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act. The appellant contended that the issue of limitation is crucial as it impacts the department's ability to collect service tax and impose penalties. The Court emphasized the importance of considering Section 73 in relation to the date of demand and other relevant facts. The impugned order was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to reevaluate the case in light of Section 73 before proceeding with any further actions. The Central Excise Appeal was allowed accordingly.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1727
Issues involved: Challenge to Tribunal's order directing promotion based on seniority and disciplinary proceedings.
Summary:
The writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order directing promotion of the respondent based on seniority from a specific date. The respondent faced major penalty proceedings initiated by the CVC, and despite being recommended for promotion, the competent authority did not approve it, resulting in the promotion of juniors. The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court precedent, allowed the Original Application for promotion.
The petitioners argued that the respondent's non-promotion was justified as the competent authority had not approved it. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated with a charge-sheet before sealed cover recommendations. The Court highlighted the importance of following established procedures before denying promotion.
In analyzing previous cases, the Court distinguished the facts of R.S.Sharma's case from the present case, emphasizing the need for proper initiation of disciplinary proceedings before sealed cover recommendations. The Court also referenced a case involving Mr. Anil Kumar Sarkar, where promotion was denied pending disciplinary proceedings until a charge sheet was issued.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no merit in the writ petition and dismissing it without costs. Another related case was dismissed as infructuous.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1726
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the credit of TDS for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 as per the provisions of section 155(14) of the I.T. Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Credit of TDS for Assessment Year 2007-08
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow TDS credit of Rs. 20,04,748/- for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee had e-filed its return on 30.10.2007, claiming TDS credit of Rs. 94,00,697/-. Subsequently, on 27.7.2009, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 requesting additional TDS credit of Rs. 20,04,748/-. The AO rejected this claim on 11.5.2011. The CIT(A) provided relief to the assessee, directing the AO to verify the TDS credit as per the provisions of section 155(14) and grant the refund with interest. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the provisions u/s 155(14) are clear and self-contained, and the AO was directed to verify the TDS credit and grant the refund accordingly.
Issue 2: Credit of TDS for Assessment Year 2008-09
For the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee e-filed its return on 3.10.2008, claiming TDS credit of Rs. 3,69,85,737/-. A revised return was filed on 18.9.2009, claiming a higher TDS credit of Rs. 4,55,73,699/-. The assessee filed an application u/s 154 on 4.1.2011 for additional TDS credit of Rs. 85,87,962/-. The AO rejected this application, stating that the original return was not filed on time. The CIT(A) provided relief, directing the AO to consider the revised return and the TDS credit claim as per section 155(14). The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appellate authority is empowered to direct the AO to make a just assessment based on the revised return and the provisions of section 155(14).
Supporting Case Laws:
The Tribunal referred to several case laws supporting the CIT(A)'s decision:
1. Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. vs. ADIT - The court held that the AO could not reopen assessment proceedings merely because excessive relief was granted based on TDS certificates.
2. Gloric Investments Ltd. vs. DDIT - The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a refund based on TDS certificates produced later, even if the claim was not made in the original return.
3. CIT vs. Digital Global Soft Ltd. - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the assessee was entitled to TDS credit even if the claim was made after the original return, as long as the certificates were produced within the statutory period.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders and upheld the decisions to allow the TDS credits for both assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders were pronounced in the open court on 29th November 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1725
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT u/s 12AA of the IT Act, failure to produce evidence, denial of opportunity of being heard.
Summary:
The appellant filed an appeal against the CIT's order denying registration u/s 12A of the Act. The Tribunal had earlier directed the CIT to reexamine the issue regarding registration u/s 12AA. However, the CIT did not pass any order within six months, and subsequently denied registration on 15/09/2011. The Tribunal held that as the CIT did not act within the specified time, registration u/s 12AA is deemed to have been granted. The CIT's order was challenged, with the appellant arguing that the registration should have been granted. The Tribunal referred to a High Court judgment and directed the CIT to grant registration u/s 12AA. The appeal was allowed, and the registration was deemed to have been granted.
The Tribunal considered the appellant's plea in light of the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the doctrine of purposive interpretation in fiscal statutes. It was noted that non-consideration of the registration application within the specified time should result in a deemed grant of registration. The Tribunal directed the CIT to treat the appellant as an approved institution under s. 12AA and to recomputed its income under s. 11 of the Act. The registration u/s 12AA was deemed to have been granted, subject to the CIT's power u/s 12AA(3) in appropriate cases.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the CIT to grant the registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The order was pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1724
Issues involved:
1) Validity of reopening proceedings u/s 147/148 of the IT Act 1961
2) Addition of Rs. 2 lac as loan received u/s 68 of the Act
3) Addition of Rs. 2 lac as gift received u/s 68 of the Act
Validity of Reopening Proceedings:
The assessee challenged the first appellate order, contending that the assessing authority's action u/s 147/148 of the IT Act was beyond the limitation period and lacked legal basis. The appellant argued that the initiation of reopening proceedings was invalid as it was solely based on information without tangible material or supporting evidence. Citing relevant case law, the appellant emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence to justify reopening proceedings.
Addition of Loan Received u/s 68:
The assessing authority added Rs. 2 lac as a loan received from Smt. Sita Devi u/s 68 of the Act, treating it as an accommodation entry without verifying the authenticity of documents provided by the assessee. The appellant submitted various documents supporting the loan transaction, including affidavits, bank statements, and confirmations. The appellant highlighted that the loan amount was repaid during the year, emphasizing the genuineness of the transaction and challenging the assessing authority's decision.
Addition of Gift Received u/s 68:
Similarly, the assessing authority added Rs. 2 lac as a gift received from Smt. Saraswati Devi u/s 68 of the Act, alleging it to be an accommodation entry without proper verification. The appellant presented detailed documentation, including gift deeds, bank statements, and transaction records, to substantiate the gift transaction. The appellant argued that the assessing authority's decision to add the amount without due diligence was unwarranted, citing relevant legal precedents to support the genuineness of the transaction.
Judgment Outcome:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, declaring the initiation of reopening proceedings as invalid due to lack of concrete evidence and supporting material. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of tangible grounds for reopening proceedings, as per established legal principles. Consequently, the additions made by the assessing authority were deemed infructuous in light of the invalid reopening proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment based on the void notice u/s 148 of the Act was held to be void ab initio.
........
|
9911796707
