|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 107 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 201 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Cash credits ... ... ... ... ..... ced for examination of the AO. I do not find any force in these submissions. Cash credit has been proved through documentary evidence. Sh. Naresh Kapoor was not available when the assessee was directed to produce him. He was stated to be under arrest. There was, therefore, good ground in not producing the creditor before the AO. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no adverse inference for non-production of Sh. Naresh Kapoor could be drawn against the assessee. The Revenue further did not place any material on record to show that the assessee, a minor, had given unaccounted money to Sh. Naresh Kapoor to obtain bank drafts and show them as loan to the assessee and then take back such unaccounted money when loan along with interest was returned to Sh. Naresh Kapoor. The case of the Revenue, based on surmises and conjecture, was rightly rejected by the CIT(A). I agree with her finding and confirm the impugned order. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 200 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Business Disallowance
... ... ... ... ..... treated as notional or inconsequential. The assessee, therefore, was entitled to interest on the capital as reflected in the books of account. 14. I further find substance in the arguments of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that there is no power with the Assessing Officer to re-write the books of account. The interest has to be allowed as computed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has only to say whether the interest claimed is authorised by or is in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. He is not entitled to make adjustment in the profit and loss account or in the capital accounts of the partners. Another factor that partners have been taxed on the interest allowed to them by the firm also supports the case of the assessee. In the above circumstances, I hold that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(b)(iv) of the Act. I confirm his action. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 199 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
Carry Forward And Set Off Of Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... erein. 28. As per this decision, the order under section 263 of the CIT is quashed and the appeal of the assessee allowed. 29. Let the matter be placed before the regular Bench for passing the consequential order in accordance with the majority view. ORDER UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE INCOME.TAX ACT, 1961 Shri G. Chowdhury, J.M.--On a difference of opinion between the Members originally constituting this Bench, the point of difference was referred to Hon ble Vice-President KZ as Third Member under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In accordance with the majority view after duly taking into account the opinion expressed by the Ld. Third Member, we hold that the A.O.P. is an independent assessable entity, different and distinct from its members and the loss can be set off only against its own profits and not against profits of its members. Accordingly, the order passed under section 263 by the CIT is cancelled. . In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 198 - ITAT CALCUTTA-C
Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... es between different nature of income was followed by the Tribunal. 28. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion and observation made by us including the judicial decisions and the relevant provisions of the Act referred to hereinabove, and for the reasons given by us, we have no hesitation to decide the issue in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In short, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and that of the Assessing Officer is restored on the issue involved in this appeal. We, therefore, hold that the Assessing Officer s action in disallowing against taxable business income, the pro rata expenses on account of interest as relatable to earning of exempted dividend income and appropriating the same against exempted dividend income is justified and in order. The Assessing Officer shall modify the assessment order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal, filed by the Revenue, stands allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 197 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A
Capital Gains, Capital Asset ... ... ... ... ..... khs and debited in its books of account as capital-work-in-progress. 16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the order of the ld. CIT(A) that there was no cost of acquisition attributable to the various rights, licences, permissions, etc., transferred by the assessee to GKW and, therefore, the provision of section 48 cannot be invoked. However, so far as treatment of capital gains as short-term or long-term is concerned, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh after taking into consideration the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee, vis-a-vis the period to which it relates, as to whether earlier than 36 months on the date of transfer of right or otherwise. However, benefit of indexation can be given only in respect of expenses which are incurred prior to 36 months from the date of sale of rights, i.e., 30-8-1995. Paras 17 to 41. these paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2003 (5) TMI 196 - ITAT BOMBAY-H
Minimum Alternate Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the Explanation. Therefore, so far as the applicability of clause (i) is concerned, it would be sufficient if the amount be withdrawn from any reserve or provision and if the amount is credited to the profit and loss account. 15. The contention of the learned counsel that the CIT(A) retained the disallowance on the basis of totally different reasons which actually amounted to enhancement and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) should have given an opportunity to the assessee before making the disallowance does not require any consideration in view of our findings in the aforesaid paragraphs. 16. In view of the discussion above since all the conditions as laid down in clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JA(2) are satisfied in the present case, therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to deduct the amount of write back of Rs. 4.18 crores from the book profits for the purpose of computation of income under section 115JA of the Act. 17. As a result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 195 - ITAT BOMBAY-G
Deductions, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... other company being not a trading company or a investment company a separate category in column (ii) is made for which rate of tax prescribed at 45 . Since in the instant case admittedly the assessee was held as manufacturing company and in addition to this for the year under consideration the percentage of income from manufacturing activity was calculated 48.93 , higher percentage than the other two activities if compared independently with each of them, the rate of tax has to be levied at 45 plus surcharge thereon. In view of the reasons recorded above, we hereby hold that for the year under consideration the business of the appellant company mainly consisted of manufacturing income being the highest in percentage, therefore, the Assessing Officer has wrongly charged the rate of tax at 50 . Resultantly the order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard is hereby reversed and this ground of the assessee is allowed. 22. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 194 - ITAT BOMBAY-G
Income Escaped Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ich have already been referred, it has been held that even if no plea of limitation is taken, the courts are bound to consider it and even if a written undertaking is given by the assessee stating that he will not raise the plea of limitation, merely on that basis, the limitation does not get extended. Therefore, in our view, there is no question that the assessee is estopped from raising this plea before the CIT(A) and then before the Tribunal. 38. Following from the discussion given above, we hold that the impugned re-assessment has been made by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of the limitation period which renders the assessment null and void. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and the assessment order is quashed. 39. In view of our quashing the assessment order, the various other grounds of appeal are only of academic interest and are, therefore, not required to be dealt with. 40. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 193 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Business income, Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limit, Assessment - Additions to income
-
2003 (5) TMI 192 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Income-Chargeable as - Assessee entered into an agreement with ‘P’ Ltd. for sale of shares of DCM - - Purchaser deposited earnest money with assessee
-
2003 (5) TMI 191 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Penalty - For concealment of income ... ... ... ... ..... sfaction was arrived at in the absence of the same being spelt out by the order of the assessing authority. Even at the risk of repetition, we would like to state that the assessment order does not record the satisfaction as warranted by s. 271 for initiating the penalty proceedings. From the above observations of the Hon ble Delhi High Court, it would be clear that the AO should form an opinion and record his satisfaction that the income has been concealed or that inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished. This fact should be recorded in the assessment order. The Hon ble Court further observed that merely because the penalty proceedings have been initiated, it cannot be assumed that such satisfaction it was arrived at. 8.1 In view of the above decisions, I am of the firm opinion that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the AO under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I cancel the same. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 190 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... t which was payable to the Revenue had been duly paid. For the other two years, tax was paid by RB a little late. So far as the late payment was concerned, the AAC held that the assessee had to pay interest under s. 201(1A) for the said years and the assessee had accepted the said finding. 16. The fact that GEB has no tax liability, has not been disputed by the learned Departmental authorities nor by the learned Departmental Representative before us. A copy of return submitted by GEB for asst. yr. 2001-02 shows that they have declared loss of Rs. 21,61,70,25,880 and was entitled to refund of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,99,19,725. The Department will be liable to pay interest to them in view of heavy loss. The orders of the CIT(A) and the AO creating demand of Rs. 50,90,757 under s. 201(1) deserve to be quashed in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 189 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Deductions - Profits and gains from newly established small-scale industrial undertakings ... ... ... ... ..... herefore, this issue be remitted to the file of AO for examining the other conditions prescribed in s. 80HHA. 5.3 Having heard both the sides, we found that assessee is a small-scale industrial undertaking, keeping in view the amendment made in Expln. (b) to s. 80HHA by Finance Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1978. However, where the assessee fulfil various other conditions as laid down in s. 80HHA needs verification at the end of AO. We, therefore, set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of AO with direction that he should verify whether assessee fulfil various other conditions as laid down in s. 80HHA and readjudicate the issue after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Before parting we would like to record our feelings of appreciation for an admirable representation by the young chartered accountant Shri Hiren Vepari. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection for statistical purpose is treated as allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 188 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... not new to the assessee. It is seen that the assessee is engaged in this business since long and has been getting the job done through these contractors who in turn engage the labourers for doing polishing, cutting, buffing and nickel works. The impugned payments have been made to the contractors and not to the labourers engaged by the said contractors. The contractors are not new to the assessee. The bank facilities are available at Mathura. Merely they are said to be illiterate cannot be a justified reason for making the payment in cash otherwise than by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. We are of the considered view that the facts and circumstances of the case do not make out any exceptional circumstances under which the assessee could have made the payments in cash otherwise than by crossed cheque or by crossed bank draft. We, therefore, reverse the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the order passed by the AO. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 187 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... nsideration of each and every item. Further, the DVO ought to have given deduction for self-supervision at the rate of 10 per cent instead of 7.5 per cent as the deduction at 10 per cent for self-supervision has been considered by the various authorities as reasonable. Further, since there has been no preparation of drawings for the extension of the existing cold storage (third chamber), the DVO has wrongly added the cost of Rs. 15,000 for preparation of drawings. Thus, if the aforesaid amounts are deducted from the cost estimated by the DVO, there remains marginal difference of Rs. 54,189 which can be ignored in view of the decision of Tribunal, Agra Bench, in the case of Suresh Cold Storage and Ice Factory. Thus, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,882 made on account of unexplained investment in the construction of cold storage. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The appellant claims to be a sub-broker and engaged in purchase and sale of shares and debentures, etc. He was found to have made some cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 to the tune of Rs. 5,10,921 in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act read with rule 6DD. Though he explained his position but the Income-tax Officer felt dissatisfied and ordered addition of Rs. 5,10,921 for the assessment year 1992 1993 by order dated October 4, 1993. He took appeal against this and the Appellate Commissioner by order dated July 6, 1994, directed its deletion –
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order resultantly becomes unsustainable and is set aside and that passed by the Appellate Commissioner is affirmed to allow this appeal.
-
2003 (5) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the second respondent has authority to issue summons under section 131 read with section 131(1A) - In the light of the clear averments made by the second respondent and in the light of the fact that the details called for as per exhibit P8 is only relating to distributors within the State of Kerala to whom the total commission, etc., paid during the accounting year amounted to Rs. 50,000 and above and fur their limiting the period from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2001, and the power having been exercised by the second respondent as per the provisions specified under section 131(1A) of the Act and the fact that there is likelihood of concealment of income, it cannot be said that the second respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction while issuing exhibit P8.
-
2003 (5) TMI 54 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 - The petitioner submitted an application under section 65(1) in respect of the scheme, the petitioner claimed depreciation on machinery and cast iron moulds and gas cylinders. A search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act was carried out in the business premises of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., on March 6, 1996, and it was concluded on May 22, 1996. During the search proceedings it was detected by the Department that DDK Industries, Bangalore, from whom the petitioners claimed to have purchased the cylinders is a non-existent entity. - Respondents in terms of section 64(2)(ii) of the Scheme and in the light of an answer to question No. 29, decided to cancel the certificate issued under section 68(2) of the Scheme. Notice was issued in terms of annexure C calling for objections. Objections were filed in terms of annexure D. After considering the objections, the respondents cancelled the certificate in terms of annexure E. Thereafter they have issued annexures F, F1 and F2, notices under section 148. Those notices provide for an escaped assessment in terms of section 147. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner. - I am unable to accept the arguments of the petitioner. The petition stands rejected.
-
2003 (5) TMI 53 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision ignoring the fact that the Central sales tax and State sales tax collected by the assessee in the course of its business form part of the trading or business receipt?" - we are satisfied that section 43B of the Income-tax Act is not attracted at all when the assessee has not claimed any deduction of the amounts collected by it as the Central sales tax and the State sales tax.
-
2003 (5) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
"Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the increase of only Rs. 100 per month in the salaries of three employees, namely, Shri Ali Ahmed, Mohd. Ali and Ajaz Ahmad, shall be reasonable or is arbitrary and in ignorance of the conditions laid down in section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act?" - we hold that the increase in the salary of employees, namely, Ajaz Ahmad and Ali Ahmad, is reasonable and that of Mohammad Ali is unreasonable taking into account the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 40A of the Act. - Our answer to the question referred to above is decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.
|
