|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 851 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 965
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Allowance of warranty expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
2. Deletion of disallowance of liquidated damages.
Issue 1: Allowance of warranty expenses:
The appellant, a joint venture company, filed a return of income for A.Y. 2006-07, which was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961. The CIT(A) allowed a portion of warranty expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a provision made for warranty based on past experience is an allowable deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Issue 2: Deletion of disallowance of liquidated damages:
The second ground of appeal related to the deletion of disallowance of liquidated damages. The Tribunal, based on a previous decision in the assessee's own case, held that the expenditure in question did not result from a breach of law justifying disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) and decided the ground in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed based on the above considerations.
-
2011 (6) TMI 964
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 2005-06 regarding disallowance of car expenses, entertainment expenses, and business promotion expenses.
Car Expenses Disallowance:
The assessee, a private limited company, appealed against the disallowance of car expenses for personal use, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The ITAT held in favor of the assessee, stating that disallowances based solely on personal use were not justified for a corporate assessee. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.
Entertainment Expenses Disallowance:
The CIT (A) confirmed disallowance of entertainment expenses provision and part of business promotion expenses. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting discrepancies in expenses claimed and lack of verification for expenses incurred in cash. The ITAT sustained the disallowances to the extent consented by the assessee, which was 10% of the total expenses claimed under these heads.
Business Promotion Expenses Disallowance:
The CIT (A) allowed part relief on business promotion expenses disallowance, reducing it from 20% to 10%. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of verification for expenses incurred in cash and failure to establish nexus with the business. The addition of provision made under entertainment expenses was sustained as it was not actually incurred during the year.
Conclusion:
The ITAT partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the disallowances to the extent consented by the assessee. The order of the CIT (A) on these issues was sustained, and the appeal was partly allowed on June 3, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 963
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Ld. CIT (A)-VI, Ahmedabad for Assessment Year 2004-05 regarding computation of book profit u/s. 115JB and deduction u/s. 80HHC.
Computation of book profit u/s. 115JB:
The Revenue contended that the claim of the assessee should not be accepted without filing a revised return of income, citing the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. The Ld. CIT (A) directed the AO to re-compute the book profit based on the recent judgment in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. The Tribunal noted that while the AO cannot accept such claims without a revised return, the power of Appellate Authorities to consider and decide on the claim is not curtailed. As the claim was genuine and in line with the judgment in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) to entertain the claim without interference.
Deduction u/s. 80HHC:
The assessee had requested that the whole export profit be reduced from the book profit, contrary to restricting the deduction to 30% of profit u/s. 80HHC. The AO relied on the judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. to reject the claim without a revised return. However, the Ld. CIT (A) followed the judgment in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and directed the AO to re-compute the book profit accordingly. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument, stating that the Appellate Authorities have the power to consider genuine claims even without a revised return, as long as they align with relevant judgments. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2011 (6) TMI 962
Issues involved: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.
Summary:
1. The appellant applied for out-of-turn hearing due to the violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order, even though the amount involved did not meet the criteria. The appellant had already deposited a significant amount during the investigation stage. The appeal was allowed for early hearing based on these grounds.
2. The appellant's grievance included not receiving relied upon documents, inability to conduct cross-examination before the original adjudicating authority, and absence of a defense reply on record. The Commissioner(Appeals) ignored these issues raised by the appellant.
3. The order of the Joint Commissioner highlighted that the appellant had requested documents and cross-examination of several individuals, but these requests were not fulfilled. Despite the allowance for cross-examination, no one appeared for it.
4. The appellant's plea before the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the lack of supplied documents and cross-examination was not adequately addressed. The impugned order was set aside due to the violation of natural justice principles, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority.
5. The impugned order was found to be passed without observing natural justice principles, leading to the decision to remand the matter for a fair hearing. The appeal and early hearing application were disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (6) TMI 961
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the deduction claimed u/s 80-M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2003-04 based on dividends received by a private limited company dealing in shares and securities.
Details of the judgment:
1. Issue of deduction u/s 80-M:
- The company claimed a deduction of &8377; 7,50,00,000/- u/s 80-M against the dividend income received, which was paid before the due date of filing the return.
- The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim citing section 115-O(5) of the Act, as the dividends declared by the company were already taxed u/s 115-O(1).
- The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
- The company contended that since dividends were distributed before the due date of filing the return, they were entitled to the deduction u/s 80-M.
- It was argued that the provisions of section 115 of the Act were not applicable for the year under consideration.
2. Judgment and reasoning:
- The Tribunal referred to a similar case and held that deduction u/s 80-M is allowable to the assessee on dividends received against which interim dividends were paid.
- The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee.
3. Additional case reference:
- Another similar issue was raised by an assessee in a separate case, and based on the reasoning provided in the previous case, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction u/s 80-M.
4. Final decision:
- Both appeals by the assesses were allowed, and the order was pronounced on June 30, 2011.
This judgment clarifies the eligibility of a private limited company to claim deduction u/s 80-M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on dividends distributed before the due date of filing the return, despite the dividends being taxed under a different section of the Act.
-
2011 (6) TMI 960
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowability and carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) from conversion of UTI US64 units to tax-free bonds.
Summary:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal was directed against the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner observed that the AO allowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 62,53,815/- as LTCL carried forward to the subsequent year, which was incorrect as per section 10(33) of the Act. The Commissioner held that any income arising from the transfer of units of UTI US64 is exempt from tax, and similarly, the loss from such units cannot be carried forward. Consequently, the Commissioner directed the AO to recompute the total income by disallowing the LTCL of Rs. 1,01,23,377/-.
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not record a finding that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that for invoking section 263, both conditions must be satisfied. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and other relevant judgments to support its view that the Commissioner cannot assume jurisdiction without a positive finding of error and prejudice to the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order was invalid as it lacked the necessary findings and improperly directed the AO to complete the assessment in a specific manner.
2. Allowability and carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) from conversion of UTI US64 units to tax-free bonds:
The assessee argued that the LTCL from the conversion of UTI US64 units should be allowed to be set off against other capital gains and carried forward. The assessee relied on the expert opinion of Shri V. H. Patil and various judicial precedents, including the Tribunal's decision in Navin Bharat Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 90 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM).
The Commissioner, however, held that as per section 10(33), any income from the transfer of UTI US64 units is exempt from tax, and thus, the loss from such units cannot be set off against other capital gains or carried forward. The Commissioner relied on the decisions in Dalmia Jain & Co. (65 ITR 408) (Pat) and Harprasad And Co. P. Ltd. (99 ITR 118) (SC) to support his view.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant case laws, held that the AO had adopted one of the permissible views in law by allowing the LTCL to be set off and carried forward. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner cannot direct the AO to complete the assessment in a particular manner, especially when the AO's view is a possible and valid interpretation of the law. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order u/s 263 was outside the purview of the section and thus, cancelled it.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 was invalid and the AO's original assessment allowing the LTCL was a permissible view in law.
-
2011 (6) TMI 959
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the qualification of a rig as a ship under section 115VD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for opting the Tonnage Tax Scheme, and the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Qualification of Rig as a Ship:
The revenue contended that the rig owned by the assessee, placed in a vessel for offshore drilling operations, does not qualify as a ship u/s 115VD for opting the Tonnage Tax Scheme. The High Court decision under section 33AC, holding that a rig on a barge may be considered a ship, was cited by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order based on the earlier decision, as no distinguishable features were presented by the lower authorities regarding the ship's classification as a factory ship.
Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A:
The cross objection by the assessee pertained to the disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D. The Tribunal noted that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08, as per a Bombay High Court decision. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, considering the facts of the case and the High Court's ruling.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the ship classification issue and allowed the assessee's cross objection on the expense disallowance for statistical purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in line with the law and relevant court rulings.
-
2011 (6) TMI 958
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act.
2. Service of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
3. Adjudication of additions on merits.
Summary:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order canceling the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The CIT(A) had declared the assessment order invalid on the grounds that the notice u/s 148 was not served upon the assessee. The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the notice dated 28.03.2006 was sent by speed post to the address available in the assessee's bank account, which was not returned as unserved. The Tribunal held that the service of notice was deemed valid as per the Calcutta High Court's ruling in 28 ITR 684. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment order.
2. Service of notice u/s 148 of the Act:
The Tribunal scrutinized the service of notice u/s 148 and found that the notice was sent to the address provided by the assessee to the bank. The Tribunal noted that the address was valid and the notice was not returned unserved. The Tribunal concluded that the service of notice was valid and the CIT(A) erred in holding otherwise. The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision, which states that service is deemed effected if the notice is properly addressed, prepared, and posted by registered post.
3. Adjudication of additions on merits:
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the additions on merits since the assessment order was canceled on procedural grounds. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the additions on merits after hearing both parties. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal partly for statistical purposes and dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the notice u/s 148 was validly served, canceled the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the assessment order. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the additions on merits. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 957
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the invoking of jurisdiction under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act and the treatment of income from growing mushrooms as agricultural income or business income.
Issue 1: Invoking of Jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act
The assessee's appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) concerning the assessment year 2003-04 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147, contending that income from growing mushrooms does not qualify as agricultural income. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on a mere difference of opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's rulings in Raymond Woolen Mills Vs. ITO and CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. emphasized the need for tangible material to support the belief of income escapement for invoking section 147. The court held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening lacked merit as the mushrooms farming was recognized as an agricultural activity by the Ministry of Agriculture. Consequently, the reopening of assessment under section 147 was deemed invalid, and the assessment proceedings were canceled.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reopening of assessment under section 147 and subsequent notice under section 148. The judgment highlighted the importance of tangible material for invoking section 147 and upheld the recognition of mushroom cultivation as an agricultural activity.
-
2011 (6) TMI 956
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee-trust for benefits under Section 11.
2. Addition of corpus donations under Section 68.
3. Addition of cash payments violating Section 40A(3).
4. Addition of capitation fees.
5. Donations made to Jeppiaar Remibai Charitable Trust.
6. Addition based on entries found on a visiting card.
7. Addition based on cash withdrawals from banks.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility of the Assessee-Trust for Benefits under Section 11:
The core issue was whether the assessee-trust was entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied these exemptions, citing violations under Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3). The AO argued that the trust had diverted funds to associate concerns like Jaisakthi Educational Trust, Jeppiaar Farms, and Jeppiaar Housing Ltd., which were managed by trustees of the assessee-trust. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found no diversion of funds for personal benefits and upheld the trust's eligibility for Section 11 benefits. The Tribunal confirmed that the funds given to Jaisakthi Educational Trust were used for charitable purposes and that the payments to Jeppiaar Farms and Jeppiaar Housing Ltd. were repayments of past liabilities, not diversions of funds.
2. Addition of Corpus Donations under Section 68:
The AO added Rs. 6,29,60,000 to the income of the trust, treating it as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) found that Rs. 5 crores were transferred from the fee collection account, and the remaining Rs. 1,29,60,000 were received in cash. The CIT(A) accepted that even if these were not corpus donations, the funds were applied for charitable purposes, thus exempting them from being treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal upheld this view, confirming that the funds were used for charitable activities.
3. Addition of Cash Payments Violating Section 40A(3):
The AO made additions for cash payments exceeding the limit prescribed under Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) held that Section 40A(3) applies to business income, not to charitable trusts whose income is exempt under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the trust's income is based on the application of funds for charitable purposes, not on business expenditure deductions.
4. Addition of Capitation Fees:
The AO alleged that the trust collected capitation fees based on two loose sheets found during a search. The CIT(A) found that these sheets were estimates and did not prove actual receipt of capitation fees. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the sheets did not contain details of actual cash transactions or specific payers.
5. Donations Made to Jeppiaar Remibai Charitable Trust:
The AO allowed only 50% of the donations as deductions, treating the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). The CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that the assessee should be assessed as a trust, and the donations to another charitable trust (Jeppiaar Remibai Charitable Trust) should be treated as application of funds for charitable purposes, thus fully deductible.
6. Addition Based on Entries Found on a Visiting Card:
The AO added Rs. 7,64,185 based on cash transaction entries on a visiting card found during a search. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no evidence linking these entries to the trust's activities, as the card did not belong to any specific person, and there was no context for the transactions. The addition was deleted.
7. Addition Based on Cash Withdrawals from Banks:
The AO added amounts withdrawn by the Managing Trustee, citing lack of details. The CIT(A) found that the withdrawals were for trust activities and were properly accounted for. The Tribunal upheld this, noting that the withdrawals were used for legitimate expenses like construction and transport, and were supported by vouchers.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, granting the trust exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, and deleting various additions made by the AO. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross objections by the assessee were partly allowed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 955
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging deletion of additions made by Assessing Officer on account of share capital, share application money, and investment in HTCCL.
Deletion of Additions:
The appeal questioned whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The court noted that the assessee received application money through account payee cheques and provided a complete list of shareholders with their details. The Assessing Officer's grievance was the failure to produce the parties who advanced the funds. The court held that the initial onus of the assessee was met by disclosing full particulars, shifting the burden to the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness. Since the Assessing Officer did not take necessary steps to verify, the additions under section 68 of the Income Tax Act were deemed unjustified.
Concurrent Findings:
Both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal correctly applied the law based on the evidence. The court found no reason to interfere with the factual findings and dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial legal questions. The connection application was disposed of as the appeal was dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 954
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition due to change in accounting policy from accrual basis to cash basis.
2. Deletion of addition due to disallowance of contribution to the state renewal fund.
3. Deletion of addition due to prior period expenses.
4. Addition due to undervaluation of closing stock of land under litigation/encroachment.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition Due to Change in Accounting Policy:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO due to a change in accounting policy from accrual basis to cash basis for economic rent and service charges. The Tribunal had previously decided this issue in favor of the assessee for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, stating that income should not be recognized unless there is a reasonable certainty of its recoverability. Following these precedents, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
2. Deletion of Addition Due to Disallowance of Contribution to State Renewal Fund:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10.00 lacs made by disallowing the contribution to the state renewal fund, claiming it was an application of income and not business expenditure. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06, recognizing the contribution as solely for the welfare and benefit of employees and allowable u/s 37(1). Following this precedent, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
3. Deletion of Addition Due to Prior Period Expenses:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,60,841/- made by the AO for prior period expenses not pertaining to the relevant financial year. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 2003-04, and 2004-05, allowing such expenses. Following these precedents, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the prior period expenses.
4. Addition Due to Undervaluation of Closing Stock of Land:
The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 1,45,33,000/- made by the AO for undervaluation of closing stock of land under litigation/encroachment. The AO argued that the land should be valued at cost price, as it was in previous years, and that the change in valuation method was not justified. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the legal ownership of the land remained with the assessee and that the valuation should be at cost. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO for further examination, emphasizing that litigation and encroachment affect stock valuation and that the reduction in value must be substantiated by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 24-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 953
Issues involved: Appeal by revenue against deletion of addition in net profit u/s 145(3) and direction to accept income declared by assessee.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the deletion of an addition in the net profit made by the Assessing Officer under section 145(3) and the direction to accept the income declared by the assessee. The crux of the arguments revolved around whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without considering the provisions of sec. 145(3) and directing the Assessing Officer to accept the income as declared by the assessee. The appellant contended that the deletion was unjustified, while the respondent defended the impugned order, stating there was no infirmity.
Upon considering the submissions of both sides and examining the available material, it was noted that the appellant was engaged in the sale of liquor and beer in various districts. The Assessing Officer observed discrepancies in the sales figures, lack of cash memos, and lower net profit rate. However, it was highlighted that the business was regulated by the Excise Department, with no discrepancies in quantitative details or purchase prices. The net profit rate of 1.77% was deemed reasonable given industry standards. Consequently, it was concluded that there was no basis for invoking sec. 145(3) and estimating sales at a higher figure. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute business income based on the disclosed turnover.
Regarding interest income, it was determined to be separate from the liquor business income and to be added as income from other sources. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed in part, with the order pronounced in the open court in June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 952
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A) order u/s 143(3)/147 for assessment year 2002-03 regarding estimation of sales and profit by lower authorities.
Estimation of sales and profit:
The appellant, a country liquor contractor, filed return at income of Rs. 1,19,147. The AO estimated sales at 2.5 times license fee and profit at 5%, making an addition of Rs. 8,01,916. The appellant contended that the liquor contract system had changed significantly post-1999, affecting the estimation method. However, CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The ITAT found that the appellant maintained proper books of account, duly audited u/s 44AB, with no defects noted during scrutiny. As per legal provisions, when books are correct, AO cannot estimate profit arbitrarily. Since books were not rejected, the ITAT reversed lower authorities' decision, directing deletion of the addition.
Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that when books of account are accurate and no defects are found, AO cannot arbitrarily estimate profit. The decision of the lower authorities was reversed, and the AO was directed to delete the addition made based on estimated sales and profit.
-
2011 (6) TMI 951
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT u/s. 263 for assessment year 2006-07.
Grounds of appeal:
1. CIT's order u/s. 263 cancelling assessment and directing de novo assessment was unjustified.
2. CIT's order u/s. 263 was bad, illegal, and unjustified.
3. CIT's action of setting aside assessment u/s. 263 was unjustified.
Facts:
- CIT noted debits towards provision for doubtful debts/deposits in profit and loss account.
- CIT observed under-statement of income due to non-addition of provisions while computing total income.
- Assessee claimed the amount as bad debts, written off in profit and loss account.
- Assessee relied on Vijaya Bank case for methodology.
- CIT set aside assessment, directing reframe after verification of books of account.
Assessee's arguments:
- Two views possible as seen from Section 154 proceedings.
- Cited case supporting contention that assessment order was not erroneous.
Department's submission:
- CIT's order of setting aside assessment should be upheld.
Judgment:
- For CIT to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263, assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
- Examination focused on whether sundry debtors were written off.
- Methodology of writing off debts in conformity with Supreme Court decision.
- Actual write off of amount justifies deduction on bad debt.
- CIT not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263.
- Order of CIT cancelled, appeal of assessee allowed.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata allowed the appeal against the CIT's order u/s. 263 for assessment year 2006-07, finding that the assessment order was not erroneous and the CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
-
2011 (6) TMI 950
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of registration of Trust by CIT-III, Baroda under section 12A.
Summary:
Issue 1: Rejection of registration of Trust under section 12A
The assessee appealed against the rejection of the registration of the Trust by the CIT-III, Baroda. The main reason given by the CIT for refusing registration was that the trust violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, which debars exemption under Section 11 for trusts benefiting a particular religious community or caste. The assessee argued that some trust objects were for all communities without discrimination, making it a charitable-cum-religious trust not subject to Section 13(1)(b). The ITAT, citing relevant case law, found that the trust was charitable-cum-religious, and Section 13(1)(b) did not apply. As the CIT did not provide any other reasons for refusal, the ITAT directed the CIT to grant registration to the assessee-trust under Section 12AA of the IT Act.
Decision:
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the CIT to grant registration to the assessee-trust under Section 12AA of the IT Act.
-
2011 (6) TMI 949
Issues involved: Challenge to re-assessment orders and demand notices, application for stay of recovery of disputed tax, penalty, and interest, delay in disposal of appeals by appellate authority.
In the present case, the petitioner challenged the re-assessment orders and demand notices for the tax period from April 2006 to March 2007. The petitioner filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3, Bangalore, along with applications for stay of recovery of disputed tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner had already deposited 50% of the disputed taxes at the time of filing the appeals and sought stay for the recovery of the remaining 50%. The appellate authority granted stay for the balance of 50% subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee. However, the appeals were not disposed of within 120 days from the date of the interim order, leading to the assessing authority attempting to recover the balance of the disputed taxes on the basis of deemed vacation of stay.
The petitioner contended that they were not responsible for the delay in the disposal of the appeals and emphasized that they had a strong case on merits. The petitioner expressed concerns about facing great hardship if the assessing authority proceeded with the recovery of the balance taxes before the appeals were decided. Considering the circumstances, the court directed that the respondent should refrain from taking steps to recover the balance of the taxes until the appeals were disposed of. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 was instructed to adjudicate on the appeals within two months from the date of receipt of the court's order. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Moreover, the learned HCGP was given permission to file his memo of appearance within eight weeks from the date of the order, with no costs imposed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 948
Issues involved: Reopening of assessment proceedings based on surplus in shareholders account, validity of reassessment proceedings, jurisdictional grounds, and merits of the impugned addition.
Relevant Details:
1. The cross appeals were directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-2 Mumbai for A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee, engaged in life insurance business, declared a loss for the year. The Assessing Officer noticed a surplus in the shareholders account and issued a show-cause notice for potential taxation. The assessee argued that the surplus should be deducted from the deficit in the policyholders account u/s 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Assessing Officer initially accepted the net loss as declared by the assessee but later sought to reopen the assessment, claiming that the income from shareholders account should be taxed separately. The assessee objected to the reopening, citing a change of opinion as impermissible in law. Despite objections, the Assessing Officer proceeded to compute the assessment based on the income from the shareholders account.
3. The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings before the CIT(A), invoking the decision in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the issue had already been considered in the original assessment. Consequently, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed on jurisdictional grounds, and the merits were not considered.
4. The revenue appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the reassessment proceedings were valid. The Tribunal, considering the precedents and the identical circumstances, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The cross objections filed by the assessee were not taken up for adjudication as they were deemed academic.
5. The Tribunal concluded by dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee, in line with the decision pronounced on June 24, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 947
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,45,50,000 on account of excess stock.
2. Partly reducing the addition by Rs. 47,27,500 out of the total addition made by AO at Rs. 6,83,50,000 on account of excess stock.
3. Not allowing the benefit of gross profit reduced by the assessee on account of valuation made on account of 14, Vishnupuri and 14A, Vishnupuri.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 5,45,50,000 on Account of Excess Stock
The assessee objected to the addition of Rs. 5,45,50,000 based on the valuation of excess stock found during the search. The stock was valued by a Registered Valuer, and discrepancies were noted between the stock value declared by the assessee and the valuation report. The AO took the value of the stock at Rs. 9,45,50,000 instead of Rs. 4,00,00,000 as claimed by the assessee, leading to an addition of Rs. 5,45,50,000.
The CIT (A) largely upheld the AO's findings, noting that the valuation by the Registered Valuer, an expert, was authentic. The CIT (A) also highlighted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the valuation should be Rs. 4,00,00,000.
However, the Tribunal found that the valuation report had discrepancies, particularly in the valuation of the same item at different locations. For example, "Amethyst rough" was valued at different rates at different premises. The Tribunal also noted that the stock was old and recorded in the books of account, supported by purchase vouchers. The Tribunal concluded that the AO should have considered the assessee's explanation and the fact that the stock was valued at market price rather than cost price. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,45,50,000 was deleted.
Issue 2: Partly Reducing the Addition by Rs. 47,27,500 Out of Total Addition Made by AO at Rs. 6,83,50,000 on Account of Excess Stock
The CIT (A) provided partial relief by reducing the addition by Rs. 47,27,500, taking into account a 5% Gross Profit (G.P.) margin on the rough stock. The CIT (A) determined the cost value of the stock at 696, Pano Ka Dariba by reducing the G.P. from the market value of Rs. 9,45,50,000, resulting in a relief of Rs. 47,57,500. The balance addition of Rs. 6,36,22,500 was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld this partial relief, agreeing with the CIT (A)'s approach to determining the cost value by considering the G.P. margin.
Issue 3: Not Allowing the Benefit of Gross Profit Reduced by the Assessee on Account of Valuation Made on Account of 14, Vishnupuri and 14A, Vishnupuri
The AO made an addition of Rs. 1.38 crores by rejecting the assessee's claim that the valuation included an element of profit. The AO observed that the valuation was accepted by the assessee, as indicated by their signatures on the valuation report.
The CIT (A) allowed a 5% reduction in G.P. for the valuation of stock at 14, Vishnupuri and 14A, Vishnupuri. The Tribunal found that the valuation was indeed based on market value, as indicated by the date of valuation in the report. The Tribunal agreed that the profit embedded in the stock should be reduced while determining the cost price. The Tribunal allowed a reduction of 19.7% G.P., resulting in a deduction of Rs. 1,31,40,000 instead of Rs. 1,38,00,000 claimed by the assessee.
Conclusion:
- The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5,45,50,000 on account of excess stock found at Pano-ka-Dariba.
- The Tribunal upheld the partial relief of Rs. 47,27,500 provided by the CIT (A).
- The Tribunal allowed a reduction of Rs. 1,31,40,000 on account of G.P. for the valuation of stock at 14, Vishnupuri and 14A, Vishnupuri.
Order:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed in part, and the appeal of the department was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 946
Issues involved: The liability to pay interest on additional excise duty, demand of interest on differential excise duty, applicability of extended period for invoking interest demand, interpretation of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, relevance of previous judicial decisions on interest payment, impact of recent amendments in Finance Act, 2011 on interest demands.
Issue 1: Liability to pay interest on additional excise duty:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing conductors, faced a demand for interest on differential excise duty paid during a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier concluded that the appellants are not liable to pay interest on such additional excise duty. However, a subsequent show cause notice was issued demanding interest, leading to the current dispute.
Issue 2: Demand of interest on differential excise duty:
The show cause notice did not allege suppression, mis-declaration, fraud, or collusion, despite the demand relating to a period beyond the normal limitation period. The revenue argued that interest is automatically payable once the duty liability is determined, citing Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that interest liability does not automatically arise without a determination of duty liability under Section 11A.
Issue 3: Applicability of extended period for invoking interest demand:
The appellant argued that the extended period should not have been invoked for demanding interest, emphasizing that interest is an appendage to the principal duty. The absence of a proposal to determine duty liability under Section 11A in the show cause notice raised questions about the validity of the interest demand.
Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944:
The debate centered on whether Section 11AB mandates automatic interest liability once duty is determined payable. The appellant highlighted the lack of evidence regarding payment of differential duty under Section 11A(2B) and the necessity of intimating such payment to the department.
Issue 5: Relevance of previous judicial decisions on interest payment:
Reference was made to various judicial precedents, including the decision in the case of SKF Ltd., which held that interest is payable even when supplementary invoices are raised. The appellant argued that each case must be assessed based on its unique circumstances, and the decision in SKF India Ltd. cannot be blindly applied to the current case.
Issue 6: Impact of recent amendments in Finance Act, 2011 on interest demands:
The appellant highlighted the amendments in the Finance Act, 2011 merging Sections 11AA and 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The introduction of a non obstante clause indicated that for the earlier period, the time limit under Section 11A should apply, potentially affecting the validity of the interest demand.
Conclusion:
Considering the arguments presented and the lack of evidence supporting the demand for interest, the Tribunal set aside the demand for interest confirmed against the appellants, ultimately allowing the appeal in their favor.
........
|
9911796707
