|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 107 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 221 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction on the CIT to interfere in revision. These two elements must co-exist. 28. From the ratios laid down by the Hon ble Court, it is very clear that the CIT would assume jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act only when both the conditions, namely, the order passed by the AO was erroneous and the same was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue were fulfilled. In the case before us, even if the order passed by the AO was erroneous, the same could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as no prejudice is caused to the Revenue. Thus, one condition not being satisfied in the instant case, the assumption of jurisdiction for modification of the order passed by the AO is also not justified. 29. Considering the facts as a whole, we hold that the CIT has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under s. 263 of the IT Act. The order under s. 263 for all the four years are, therefore, quashed. 30. In the result, ail the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 220 - ITAT INDORE
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... that as no credit for tax deemed to have been paid on dividend for Pan Century Edible Oils Ltd. is to be allowed no interest could possibly accrue on the same. 26. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ITA Nos.342, 343, 344/IND/95, 504/IND/95 and 962/IND/96 27. In view of above noted discussion, these appeals are allowed. 28. In the result, appeals are allowed accordingly. C.O. Nos.29 to 31/IND/2000, 33/IND/2000 and 2/IND/2002 29. In view of the above noted discussion in cross-objection No.32/IND/2000, these cross-objections are dismissed. 30. In the result, cross-objections are dismissed. ITA Nos.505 to 508/IND/95 and 965/IND/96 31. In view of above noted discussion in ITA No. 345/IND/95, these appeals are allowed. 32. In the result, these appeals are allowed accordingly. C.O. Nos.34 to 37/IND/2000 and 5/IND/2002 33. In view of above noted discussion in C.O. No.32/IND /2000, these cross-objections are dismissed. 34. In the result, all these cross-objections are dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 219 - ITAT GAUHATI
Accrual Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... thout bringing any material on record. The Revenue has not placed any contrary material against the finding of the CIT(A). Under these circumstances we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has erred in making the disallowance under section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 18,93,500 and the CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the same and accordingly we find no error in the order of the CIT(A) on this account. The ground taken by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 16. Ground No.5 is general in nature and the same is also rejected. 17. In the cross objection the assessee has merely supported the order of the CIT(A) and in view of our above decision in the Revenue s appeal the ground No.1 (sic) taken in the cross objection is rejected and in the absence of any specific plea, the ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not survive for adjudication and the same are rejected. 18. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 218 - ITAT DELHI-F
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... case, the finding of the learned CIT(A) in this regard was proper and just and no interference is called for in the same. Accordingly, we uphold his order. 24. The last ground is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 7,400 under the head professional fee under s. 40A(2) and 40A(12) of the Act out of payment to S/Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, CA, SR Sharma, CA and SP Puri and Co. for consultation on income-tax, company matter, IT appeals, etc. In the first appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance holding that the fee paid was not un-reasonable or excessive. 25. Aggrieved the Revenue has come up in second appeal before this Tribunal. 26. After hearing both sides and considering the materials on the file, we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. No material was brought on record to show that the payment was unreasonable and excessive. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). 27. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 217 - ITAT DELHI-F
Capital gains ... ... ... ... ..... ). In the circumstances, neither s. 45(1) nor s. 45(4) stands attracted. CIT and Anr. vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) and CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. 1973 CTR (SC) 136 (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Conversion of partnership firm into company under Part IX of the Companies Act did not attract the provisions of s. 45(4) as there was no distribution of capital assets on dissolution provisions of s. 45(1) also could not be applied as the vesting of the properties of the firm in the company was not consequent or incidental to a transfer as contemplated by s. 45(1). 3.8 The fact of the case before the Bombay High Court and the facts involved in the present case, as stated above, are similar. Therefore, in view of the reasoning given by the CIT(A) and the reasoning of ours and in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 216 - ITAT DELHI-F
Income Escaped Assessment, Non Disclosure Of Primary Facts ... ... ... ... ..... the excess claim allowed under section 80HH. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the assessee. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 23. The last ground in appeal is regarding charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act without making any order. The reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. 2001 247 ITR 209. 24. Parties have been heard with reference to material on record and the precedents relied upon. On perusal of the order it is revealed that the Assessing Officer did not make any specific order for charging the interest nor any provision of statute has been mentioned in the main order before charging of interest under the aforesaid section from the assessee. Having regard to the Apex Court s decision, charging of such interest was unjust and the same is directed to be deleted. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 215 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... AO has already reopened the proceedings under s. 148 has been brushed aside by the CIT while passing the impugned order. Once the AO has already reopened the proceedings on the ground of payment of commission and issued notice to the assessee under s. 148 on10th March, 1997, there is absolutely no justification for the CIT to embark upon proceedings under s. 263 and pass the impugned order on2nd March, 1998. The learned counsel of course informed the Bench that proceedings under s. 148 have subsequently been dropped by the AO. However, at what stage these proceedings have been dropped and whether the same have been dropped after passing of the impugned order by the CIT is not borne out from record. Be that as it may, the impugned order of the CIT is, in our opinion, clearly without jurisdiction since the requisite conditions as contained under s. 263 are not satisfied. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we cancel the impugned order of the CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee.
-
2003 (5) TMI 214 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... on. 25. Ground No. 6 relates to disallowance of car expenses amounting to Rs. 58,767. On careful perusal of records in the light of rival submissions, we find that AO has disallowed the car expenses including depreciation 1/10th of Rs. 5,87,674 on account of personal use of the car. The CIT(A) confirmed the same after having observed that there is no unreasonbaleness in the disallowance. We have also carefully examined the impugned disallowance and we find that since the element of personal use of the vehicle is not ruled out, some disallowance deserves to be made. The disallowance made by the lower authorities to the extent of 1/10th appears to be quite reasonable. We, therefore, confirm the same. 26. Ground No. 13 relates to chargeability of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Since this ground is of consequential nature, it does not require any independent adjudication. 27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2003 (5) TMI 213 - ITAT DELHI-D
... ...
... ... ..... see should be given reasonable opportunity for being heard. 14. Ground No. 1 of Revenue rsquo s appeal for asst. yr. 1991-92 relates to the CIT(A) rsquo s direction to treat the rental income as income from business instead of income from house property as treated by the AO. After hearing both sides and considering the materials on the file, we are of the view that the matter has to be restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration and fresh order. It is noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had gone into the facts of the case, provisions of law and decided case law for the purpose. Both the AO and the CIT(A) took their respective opposite view in a routine manner. The learned CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh as per law. He should give reasonable opportunity to the assessee for being heard. 15. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal for asst. yr. 1992-93 is dismissed and the assessee rsquo s and Revenue rsquo s appeals for asst. yr. 1991-92 are partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 212 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... find that when the assessment was reopened on the basis of a letter written by the AO having jurisdiction of the LPB to the AO of the present assessee, the AO was required to make a detailed inquiry on all these points which were raised in this aforesaid letter in reassessment proceedings. More particularly, Mr. Manoj Jaiswal whose statement was found to be the basis for reopening the assessment should have been examined by the AO besides other inquires but the AO did not make any efforts and he rather accepted the claim of the assessee on incorrect assumption of facts. We are, therefore, of the view that the AO has not made the necessary inquiries which was expected from him. As such, his order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the CIT was perfectly justified in setting aside his order after having recourse to s. 263 of the IT Act. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 211 - ITAT DELHI-B
Deemed dividend ... ... ... ... ..... ive next relied upon the Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar. The facts, in this case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as there was an admission by the recipient to the fact that the assessee received money from the company using a low paid employee as a conduct for such payment. The decision, therefore, does not help the Revenue. 23.4 In CIT vs. Jamnadas Khimji Kothari, relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, the decision is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as there was a debit balance in the account of the shareholder in the books of the company which represent loan advanced to the shareholder. The decision does not render any assistance to the case of the Revenue. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the conclusion of the learned CIT(A) that credit balance, in the accounts of SIPL and KIPL of Rs. 40,50,000, did not represent deemed dividend under s. 2(22)(e). The appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 210 - ITAT DELHI-B
Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... y assessee to the State, which we may say takes up various welfare activities in various ways. Whenever any welfare activity is undertaken or is conceived by the State, the involvement of finance comes into picture. The fund/finance is generated by State through the process of taxation and if persons like the present assessee avoid payment of tax there is every likelihood of welfare activities being put on the back seat. Such an attitude on the part of any assessee has to be not only discouraged but must be dealt with a very heavy hand. We, therefore, feel that this is a fit case where the provisions of section 254(2B) needs to be invoked and appeals filed by assessee needs to be dismissed with costs. 58. In view of the discussion above, and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000 for each appeal. The Revenue is at liberty to recover the cost in accordance with the law.
-
2003 (5) TMI 209 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... on. In that appeal the plea of M/s HDP that undisclosed income did not belong to it but belonged to Suresh Kumar and his firm M/s OPSK, was rejected by the Tribunal and accepted by the assessee group. Suresh Kumar shall get automatic telescoping adjustment of that two amounts but remaining amount shall stand assessed in the hands of assessee Suresh Kumar who is sole proprietor of M/s OPSK. 44. In the case of Suresh Kumar there is another addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in respect of purchase of property in Bulandshahr. The contention of the assessee is that property was individually purchased by him and sale deed was later on cancelled. He filed copies of such documents as well as affidavit of seller appearing at pp. 126 to 130. The AO noted that no evidence was filed to this effect by him. The matter stands restored back to the file of AO who will examine the issue afresh in view of the evidence filed before us. Ordered accordingly. 45. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 208 - ITAT DELHI-A
... ...
... ... ..... assignment of trade-mark for prohibition to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing or right to carry on any business was not exigible to capital gain tax. With effect from1st April, 1998, the amount received on account of assigning the right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing became exigible to capital gains tax. Similarly, w.e.f.1st April, 2003, any amount received to assign the right to carry on any business also became exigible to capital gains tax. The amount received on assigning trade-mark became taxable w.e.f1st April, 2002. But these amendments were prospective in nature and will not apply to the assessment year in question. This was clarified by the Board vide its Instruction No. 1964 dt.17th March, 1999. In view of the facts mentioned above, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under s. 2 of the Act was illegal and the order passed by him is quashed. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 207 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B
Revision Of Orders prejudicial to interest of revenue ... ... ... ... ..... records of an assessment order in exercise of his powers, of revision under section 263, the Commissioner finds that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate the penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) because the penalty proceedings are not a part of the assessment proceedings and also because the non-initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) during the course of assessment proceedings neither make the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) passed under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act after setting aside the assessment order of the Assessing Officer and directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings against the assessee, is set aside and the ground of appeal taken by the assessee is allowed. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 206 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
... ...
... ... ..... a (2003) 181 CTR (SC) 1 (2003) 260 ITR 548 (SC) the apex Court has held as under The legislative power either to introduce enactments having retrospective effect for the first time or to amend an enacted law with retrospective effect, is not only subject to the question of competence but is also subject to several judicially recognised limitations. The first is the requirement that the words used must expressly provide for or clearly imply retrospective operation. 4.4 There is no indication whatsoever in the amendment that it is to be applied retrospectively. On the other hand, the amendment is clearly shown to be applicable from 1st April, 2003. Respectfully following the decision in the case of Prithipal Singh and Co., we uphold the order of CIT(A). 4.5 There is no dispute that in the present case, there was no positive income and that the AO ignored the loss and took the income at nil. The cancellation of penalty is upheld. 5. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 205 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
... ...
... ... ..... ords and carefully gone through the orders of the tax authorities below. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee and also taking into consideration the fact that distress sale in the days of terrorism has not been taken into consideration by the DVO while furnishing his report, is sufficient to justify the sale of the property by the assessee at Rs. 10 lacs because it was only the CRPF who has agreed to purchase this property at Rs. 16,02,500 with whom the deal could not materialise and ultimately finding no prospective buyer, the assessee has sold the property at a lesser price. Hence, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) after considering all these facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee, was fully justified in deleting the impugned addition made by the GTO and accordingly, the order of the CIT(A), in this regard is upheld and the ground of appeal taken by the Revenue is rejected. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 204 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ease deed, it could be held that expenditure incurred was on purely temporary wooden structures and hence entitled to depreciation 100 . Otherwise, it would not be an expenditure on temporary wooden structure and hence entitled to depreciation at normal rate. Since full facts in regard to this issue are not on record and these have also not been placed before us during the course of hearing, we consider it fair and reasonable to set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue to his file with a direction to redecide the matter in accordance with law and keeping in view our observations made hereinabove by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, both the parties shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity before deciding the issue afresh. This ground of revenue s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, whereas the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 203 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... neration has been rightly claimed and should be allowed as deduction under section 40(b)(v) of the Income-tax Act. We order accordingly. 11. That during the course of hearing of appeal, the assessee raised an additional ground of appeal relating to charging of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act. It was contended that the assessee objected to charging of interest under the above provision as per ground No.6 raised before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The aforesaid ground was not adjudicated upon in the impugned order. After considering relevant material, we find that the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee is correct. While re-determining the income of the assessee as per our above directions, the question of charge ability of interest under section 234B should also be looked into by the Assessing Officer. This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 2. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed in terms stated above.
-
2003 (5) TMI 202 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A
Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... n on its part to levy penal interest cannot be construed under any circumstances as an act of waiver. Thus the question of presumption that the Assessing Officer must have waived the interest does not arise. 25. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, legal position discussed above and by following the ratio of the various judgments cited above, we are of the considered opinion that there was a mistake of law in not charging interest under section 139(8)/215 at the time of passing the second rectification order on 30-11-1993 charging of interest under these sections was mandatory. This being a mistake of law apparent from record, the Assessing Officer had correctly rectified the same under section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) in sustaining such order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is upheld. All the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 26. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|
