|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 192 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 913
... ...
... ... ..... nt of any rights therein cannot be extended to mean the extinguishment of rights independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. To so read the expression is to render it ineffective and its use meaningless. As we read it, therefore, the expression does include the extinguishment of rights in a capital asset independent of and otherwise than on account of transfer. 19. In view of foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us in favour of CIT (Revenue) and against an assessee. In other words, we answer the question by holding that Tribunal was not justified in holding the amount of Rs. 7,34,000 as capital receipt not exigible to capital gains tax as no transfer of any property was involved within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the IT Act. Instead, we hold by answering the question that amount of Rs. 7,34,000 is a capital receipt exigible to capital gains tax as it involved transfer of property within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the IT Act. No costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 911
... ...
... ... ..... er requires consideration. 2. Hence Rule. 3. The advocate on record for revenue waives service. 4. Though it will be open to the Assessing Officer to continue the proceedings pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, he shall not pass final order until further order of this Court. 5. Hearing expedited. 6. Liberty to revenue to apply for fixation of date of hearing after the return is filed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 905
... ...
... ... ..... g Officer was erroneous as also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as it was passed without making appropriate enquiries relevant in the context of the provisions of section 40A(2) . The learned Commissioner has simply set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to make requisite enquiries and then pass a speaking order. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. 27. Several judicial authorities have been referred to in the impugned order of the Commissioner. Before us also, both the parties have cited a long line of decisions. Both the parties claimed that the authorities cited by them supported their case and covered it in their favour. The judicial principles circumscribing the powers of the Commissioner under section 263 are well known. It is basically a question of applying them to a given set of facts. And this is what we have attempted to do in the case before us. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 891
... ...
... ... ..... in the parameters of section 68, and an addition to some extent was sustained, the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) has to be considered on the basis of evidence or record as to whether the explanation of the assessee was plausible. If the explanation is found to be plausible, no penalty under section 271(1)(c ) could be leviable. In the present case, the assessee has also submitted the explanation and on the basis of material and evidence placed on record, such explanation appears to be plausible, even though addition for the same was made. Thus, in the light of these facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the ratio of the aforesaid judgments/decisions, I am of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the impugned penalty, I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and cancel the impugned penalty. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 888
... ...
... ... ..... seen from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the income at the rate 2 per cent on the gross receipts of the assessee should be taken as income taxable for the period under consideration. The Tribunal had also taken into consideration the finding of the CIT wherein he has allowed the appeal holding that the interest earned by the assessee during the course of its business should be taken as income from business and it should not be considered separately and the 2 per cent estimate fixed by him will take care of that also. It is clear that the finding of the Tribunal regarding fixation of percentage of profit and consideration of interest is purely a finding of fact and it is based on evidence and, therefore, no Question of law much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... e society engaged in- (i) to (iii) (iv)the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agricultural for the purpose of supplying them to its members." 9. Thus, the interpretation placed by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra) would still be applicable for interpreting the provision of clause (iv). 10. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the apex society supplied/sold gypsum, seeds and fertilizers to its members. These goods were intended for agricultural purposes and, therefore, benefit of section 80P(2)(iv) of the Act was available. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 12. We accordingly answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 869
... ...
... ... ..... E.Vahanvati, SG , Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv., Mr. Preetesh, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. O R D E R Issue notice. Tag with S.L.P.(Civil) No. 25635 of 2004.
-
2005 (2) TMI 866
... ...
... ... ..... the present case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting an addition of ₹ 1,22,13,750/- (or such other amount as computed by A.O. Received in cash by the assessee) made by the Assessing Officer on account of booking of vehicles in the bogus names and premium on sale of these vehicles?” Paper books be filed within time as per rules. To be heard in regular course.
-
2005 (2) TMI 865
... ...
... ... ..... O has already allowed claim for depreciation in full, then the direction given by the learned CIT(A) to the AO to allow full depreciation is not perverse or uncalled for. Ground fails. 74. Ground No. 1(ix) relates to deletion of addition of ₹ 20,77,406 made by the AO towards machinery spares and repairs and identical issue was before the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for asst. yr. 1990-91 and Tribunal vide its order dt. 23rd Dec, 1993 in ITA No. 1288/All/1993 has already decided this issue in favour of the assessee and the learned CIT(A) has also taken note of the fact. As the learned CIT(A) has followed the order of the Tribunal, there is no infirmity in the order and we also confirm the view taken by the learned CIT(A) which is based on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for just preceding year. 75. Ground Nos. 1(x) and (xi) are already discussed in ground Nos. 1 to 1(v) above. 76. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 863
... ...
... ... ..... 32A of the Act on the value of the plant and machinery leased by assessee company?" 2. As far as question no. 1 is concerned, both the learned counsel concede that the issue is covered by judgment of Division Bench of our Court in CIT v. Aorow India Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 325 (Bom.). In view thereof, the first question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As far as the third question is concerned, both the learned counsel concede that the question is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC). In view thereof, the third question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2005 (2) TMI 859
... ...
... ... ..... s interest on borrowed capital deductible from income from house property under section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The issue raised in this question had come up for consideration by this Court in CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma 2002 254 ITR 1031, wherein it was held that the interest portion on the instalments paid to the Notified Area Committee is allowable as a deduction under section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The action of the Tribunal, in allowing the relief to the assessee is, therefore, in conformity with the decision in Sunil Kumar Sharma’s case (supra). Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 858
... ...
... ... ..... ty and the Tribunal is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudanan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - 251 ITR 99, wherein the Supreme Court after distinguishing Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd.’s case - 1987 168 ITR 705, and after noticing the Explanation appended to Sec.271 of the Act, had held that if an addition is made and if there is no proper explanation for such addition, it would amount to concealment of income and the authorities under the Act are justified in levying penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. 19. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudadnan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - 251 ITR 99, we are of the opinion that the question of law referred for our opinion requires to be answered in the negative. 20. In view of the above, the question of law referred by the Tribunal is answered in the negative i.e in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 856
... ...
... ... ..... med. If it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi-judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong. Hence, it is clear that section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon the Assessing Officer to initiate re-assessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion." (p. 2) 5. In CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries 1989 180 ITR 3191 , a Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal cancelling the order of re-assessment on the premise that the grounds on which the proceedings for re-assessment were initiated were non-existent. 6. Following the law laid down in the aforementioned cases, we answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2005 (2) TMI 855
... ...
... ... ..... We may make it clear that from the order of the assessing authority as also the Tribunal it is not clear as to whether the amount of interest claimed had accrued during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question or whether it related to the liability of interest of earlier years also. It is made clear that only that amount of interest which accrued during the previous year in question is liable to be allowed. So far as second question is concerned, we find that this Court in ITR No. 196 of 1985 decided on 30-9-2004 which is inter parties had answered the similar question in favour of the assessee. 4. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 3,96,000 out of the payment of interest. We accordingly, answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 854
... ...
... ... ..... uction under section 80P(2) as allowed in the assessment order and penalty shall be computed only in regard to the remaining amount. While doing so, the Assessing Officer shall allow a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. I order accordingly. This ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed. The same view was also taken in the case of Star Co-operative Society (supra) and the decision in that case equally applies to the facts of the present case. 6.2 However, before parting, I would like to mention that the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Charanjit Singh Samrala v. ITO IT Appeal No. 234 (Chd.) of 1999 for the assessment year 1996-97 is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, Assessing Officer has recorded the satisfaction that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in the assessment order itself. Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6.3 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 852
... ...
... ... ..... mer. It was true that without payment of the ‘Dharmada’ amount the customer might not be able to purchase the goods from the respondent but that did not make the payment of ‘Dharmada’ involuntary inasmuch as it was out of his own volition that he purchased yarn or cotton from the respondent. The ‘Dharmada’ amount was, therefore, not a part of the price, but a payment for the specific purpose of being spent on charitable purposes." (p. 61) 6. In CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (No. 1) 1995 212 ITR 420 , a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court approved the view taken by the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal that the receipt on account of charity collected did not constitute business income of the assessee. 7. Following the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, we answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. The reference is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
-
2005 (2) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax, who found that the payments of local sales tax and Central sales tax had been made in the first month of the next accounting year, i.e., within the statutory period as per the sales tax law. He accordingly deleted the disallowance/addition of ₹ 54,599 which order has been upheld by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for revenue. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent. 5. We find that Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1997 224 ITR 677 has held that where amount of tax collected during the last month of the accounting year is paid to the State Government within the stipulated period in the first month of the next assessment year the same is allowable. We accordingly answer the question of law referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (2) TMI 843
... ...
... ... ..... n India, and in terms of article 7 of the DTAA. It is an admitted position that S&P does not have a PE in India. In this view of the matter, the credit rating fees received by S&P was not liable to be taxed in India. We may also mention that, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT 2004 90 ITD 793 /83 TTJ (Mum.) 325, in a case the foreign recipient of an income is held to not liable to tax in respect of a certain income, the payer can also not be saddled with the tax deduction at source liability in respect of the related remittance. 6. For the reasons set out above, we hold that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source in respect of payment US 72,000 made to M/s. Standard & Poor (Australia) (P.) Ltd., for corporate credit rating of the appellant-company. We, therefore, vacate the orders of the authorities below holding assessee liable to deduct tax at source from the said payment. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 841
... ...
... ... ..... ll be the amount which bears to be the profit of the business, the same proportion as the export turnover of the business bears to the total turnover. The profits of the business has been defined in Explanation (baa) and means profits of the business as computed under the head ‘profits and gains of business’. As such any disallowance or addition made to the business income shall increase the profit and gains of the business and deduction under section 80HHC will be computed on the basis of such assessed income as that is the income which has been computed by the Assessing Officer under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction to the assessee under section 80HHC on the basis of profits and gains of business as finally assessed after taking into consideration the additions made in the assessment." 3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 840
... ...
... ... ..... it has been mentioned that the order of the assessment made by the ITO merges in the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner only insofar as it relates to the item considered and decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of our finding that in the present case the question of undisclosed purchases of zeera is concerned, it was considered and decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, the assessment order made by the ITO merges in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Tribunal has rightly held that the original assessment order stood merged in the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and doctrine of merger is attracted and sub-section (1A) of section 154 of the Act does not come in the way. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
