|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 192 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 750
Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue, Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings, etc., after certain date
-
2005 (2) TMI 749
Minimum alternate tax ... ... ... ... ..... fetters the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to question the Profit and Loss account if it is duly certified by the statutory auditors and make such adjustments as he thinks are necessary to exhibit the true profits. The judgment attaches sanctity to the certified accounts of the company and puts them on a pedestal, beyond the reach of the Assessing Officer. It refers to the judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd. rsquo s case (supra). 13. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case before us in the light of the law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) and the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court in Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) as also the order of the Tribunal in Ranjana Traders (P.) Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) wherein an identical issue was involved and decided against the Department, we find no merit in the appeal filed by he Department. 14. Appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 748
Deductions - Profits and gains from infrastructure undertakings, ... ... ... ... ..... and is contained in ground No. 8 in assessment year 1996-97. From the perusal of impugned order of CIT(A) we find that the ld. CIT(A) has simply restored the issue to Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. Inasmuch as the assessee has opportunity to contest the issue before Assessing Officer, so we find no genuine grievance to assessee against the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) on this count and so we decline to interfere with the same. 86. Issue No. 8 pertains to inclusion of freight outward in closing stock and is contained in ground No. 9 in assessment year 1996-97 and ground No. 7 in assessment year 1997-98. This issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee rsquo s own case for assessment year 1995-96 in ITA No. 2157/M/99 (copy placed on record) and so we decide this issue accordingly, that is in favour of assessee. 87. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeals being ITA Nos. 3057 and 4731/Mum./2000 are allowed in part as indicated above.
-
2005 (2) TMI 747
Minimum alternate tax ... ... ... ... ..... fetters the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to question the Profit and Loss account if it is duly certified by the statutory auditors and make such adjustments as he thinks are necessary to exhibit the true profits. The judgment attaches sanctity to the certified accounts of the company and puts them on a pedestal, beyond the reach of the Assessing Officer. It refers to the judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd. rsquo s case (supra). 22. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case before us in the light of the law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) and the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court in Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) as also the order of the Tribunal in Ranjana Traders (P.) Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) wherein an identical issue was involved and decided against the department, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Department. 23. Appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 746
Deduction of tax at source ... ... ... ... ..... the return for the year corresponding to the GDR issue in question, keeping vacant the relevant Column No. 6 available in the return. Therefore, the aspect of when the limitation starts in the absence of any specific direction given in the statute and it will not start unless the taxing authorities came to the knowledge of said issue. It is the contention of the Department that soon after it came to know the issue, they have issued show-cause notice stated supra and hence, the assessee could not show that the Department has committed any deliberate delay or it has not taken action within reasonable time in the absence of any specific time laid down by the statute. Thus, we find that this contention regarding limitation raised by the assessee will not stand for legal scrutiny. Accordingly, we hereby up-hold the same finding the issue raised by the assessee as devoid of merits and dismiss the same. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off accordingly.
-
2005 (2) TMI 745
... ...
... ... ..... e amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii) the assessee need not establish that debt has become bad and considering that the assessee had not been able to recover any amount despite filing suit and obtaining decree, there was no chance of recovery of the said debts and, therefore, CIT(A) had correctly allowed the assessee rsquo s claim. ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Vigyan Chemical Industries (supra). In Vigyan Chemical Industries rsquo case (supra) observed that where legal remedies were not perused institution of legal suit for recovery of due is not condition precedent for allowance of bad debts. Mere fact that legal proceedings were not instituted, does not warrant conclusion that debts have not become bad. 16. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to reverse the findings of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee rsquo s claim for bad debts amounting to Rs. 12,23,598. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 495
Allowability ... ... ... ... ..... ascertaining the profit made during the year. That could be an occasion to find out whether the society had a surplus out of which a rebate could be given to the loyal customers. But even if the ascertainment was at the time of making up of the accounts, the actual rebate was related back to the date of sales and the sales figure was reduced in the trading account. There was a clear decision to give a rebate to those members of the assessee-society who had done large business as an incentive for the purpose of encouraging the co-operative movement and the rebate was not to be given if there was a loss. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of rebate by the assessee-society to its members was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble High Court, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue on this issue. 8. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 494
Method Of Accounting ... ... ... ... ..... s were not recorded fully. 16. In the instant case no mistake has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer either in the books of account or in the statement of purchases, sales and stock which was maintained quantitatively on day-to-day basis. The findings recorded by the CIT(A) at page Nos. 3 and 4 have not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned AR, Mr. Rindani, that the assessee has maintained proper books of account and full details regarding the purchases, sales and stock registers were furnished to the Assessing Officer in which no defect whatsoever was pointed out, thus there was no reason before the Assessing Officer for rejecting the book results and thereby estimating the profit merely by comparing the assessee s G.P. rate. M/s. Gayatri Bullion, which was standing entirely on different footings than the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 491
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... nd, therefore, the record must be relevant to that assessee. 10. We have gone through the case laws relied by the learned Authorised Representative, and we find that the contention of the assessee is duly supported by the aforesaid case laws. No decision, which has taken contrary view, has been pointed by the learned Departmental Representative. The information on the basis of the record of the HUF no doubt may give jurisdiction to the AO to take an action under s. 147, but provision under s. 154 cannot be used in place of s. 147. The information based on the record of the HUF can be the base regarding reasons to believe under s. 148 but it cannot be regarded to be a mistake apparent from the record of the assessee as AOP and HUF both are the different assessees. 11. We, therefore, under these facts and legal position, set aside the order of the authorities below and quash the order passed by the AO under s. 154. 12. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 490
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... copy of the bank statement filed in the case of Madhavi Finvest (P) Ltd. and on the basis of the enquiry conducted from the said company and without giving or issuing letter to the assessee asking for the reasons why this addition should not be made. A perusal of the assessment order shows that there is no evidence collected by the AO during the search in the case of Smt. B. Surya Prabha that the assessee has invested the said amount. This addition in our opinion does not satisfy the conditions laid down in s. 158BB(1) that the undisclosed income should be assessed on the basis of the evidence found as a result of the search and such other material or information which are available with the AO and are relatable to the evidence so found and therefore, on this basis this addition also cannot be sustained in block assessment and is liable to be deleted. We, accordingly delete the addition so made from the asst. yr. 1995-96. 101. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 488
... ...
... ... ..... edundant and ineffective. The provision of s. 139 in our opinion cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to make any of the sub-section to be redundant. 13. When the s. 139(3) is applicable to a specific clause of assessee, and the assessee falls within that category, the assessee, in our view, should have filed the return within time as permissible under s. 139(1) r/w s. 139(3). The assessee in this case did not claim the loss within the time, but claimed when the return was filed. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO denying the claim of the assessee for the carry forward of the loss incurred under the head income from short-term capital gains. The learned Authorised Representative when the Bench asked in the Bar was fair enough to concede that there is no case law in his favour. We accordingly dismiss the appeals of the assessees. 14. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 485
... ...
... ... ..... ct the AO to consider only the interest which is actually credited or accrued interest to the account of assessee and delete the estimated additions towards interest income. For the asst. yr. 1998-99 also, the AO shall consider similarly and there cannot be double additions once in 1997-98 and another time in 1998-99. Regarding Revenue Secretary announcement that for the asst. yr. 2002-03, there was no scrutiny, we are of opinion that Revenue Secretary has no right to make such announcements and it has no binding effect. Accordingly, we reject the grounds taken by the assessee in the light of the above observations. 15. With reference to the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue against granting of stay, as we have dismissed the appeals of the assessee, thus miscellaneous petition has become infructuous and accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. 16. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 483
Depreciation, Actual cost ... ... ... ... ..... the supplier and the reason for the same is that there was no equipment and the assessee has merely financed the transaction. The lease rental structure also shows that out of Rs. 2 crores, Rs. 60 lakhs have been paid in the very first month and remaining lease rental of Rs. 3,16,000 from 7th month to 60th month was paid. This shows that the transaction is merely a finance transaction and not a lease transaction. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly held this transaction to be the case of mortgage and not lease. This lease transaction was made just to claim depreciation to reduce the tax incidence. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss this ground of appeal. 38. The issue as regards to straight lease transaction with M/s Carews Pharmaceuticals is remitted to the file of the AO and all other issues of the assessee s appeal are dismissed. 39. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2005 (2) TMI 481
Deemed Gift ... ... ... ... ..... ng the said interest of Rs. 89,52,969 as deemed gift under section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act in favour of the sister concern(s) from whom no interest had been charged on the advances/loans. The First Appellate Authority cancelled the said gift tax assessment by following the reasoning given in the case of M/s. Sahara India (Firm), the case which we have discussed hereinabove. The Department has filed this appeal disputing the order of the CGT(A). The assessee has filed cross-objections supporting the order of the First Appellate Authority. 23. Since facts and issues are identical to the case of Sahara India (Firm), we, for the reasons mentioned in paras 17 to 21, uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the Department. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed. 24. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed and both the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 479
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... he AO 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 Rs. 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 477
Reason To Believe ... ... ... ... ..... ich is placed at page NO.1 of the paper book, wherein the AO has proposed to assess the assessment year (sic) and not to reassess the same. This may be taken to be inadvertent mistake but when this fact is considered in the light of the reasons for reopening, it assumes ominous overtures and reveals the initial intention of AO that somehow or the other, he wanted to scrutinise this case. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that there are no valid reasons for reopening whereby it could be stated that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reassessment proceedings are not a tool in the hands of the AO to correct the oversight or mistakes or inadvertence while making the original assessment. The AO did not have acquired valid jurisdiction under s. 148/147. Thus, we uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A). There is no need to decide the case on merits in. case he has held the very basis as void ab initio. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 475
... ...
... ... ..... explanation of the assessee, and mere non-filing of appeal against the impugned additions, do not ipso facto lead to the finding that the assessee had concealed the income. There may be hundred and one reasons for such action of surrender of the assessee. Something more is required under the penalty proceeding to nail the assessee for concealment of income or of filing of inaccurate particulars of income. This aspect is missing from the penalty order. The parameters for penal proceedings are entirely different from making addition in quantum of income declared. When the additions are made on estimation, no penalty can be levied. When explanation of the assessee is not found to be plausible and hence rejected, this is again not a just reason to levy penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable in this case. I draw support from the abovementioned decisions. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the penalty is set aside.
-
2005 (2) TMI 473
... ...
... ... ..... ving the same from the claimed agricultural income of Rs. 29,780. The learned CIT(A) rejected all submissions made in this regard on behalf of the assessee, and also simply brushed aside the plethora of judicial pronouncements relied by the learned Authorised Representative by simply mentioning in his order, but by not giving any reasons, at all, for such rejection. 10. I am of the view that the sum total of all the decisions relied by the learned Authorised Representative in his written submission, is that, in case the addition was made after rejecting the explanation of the assessee, this fact simpliciter, would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has committed or omitted either of the ingredients, of s. 271(1)(c) of fact. Something more is required to be proved by the Department. In my opinion, the penalty is not leviable on any of the above addition. Hence, the penalty is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is accepted. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (2) TMI 472
Full And True Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... SB), wherein it was held that initiation of reassessment proceedings would be valid if alleged creditor confesses that so-called loan transaction with assessee was not genuine and he acted as a name lender, but initiation of reassessment proceedings would be invalid where alleged creditor confesses or states that he was a name lender to some parties but name of assessee is not appearing in such list. 5. In the given cases also, the lending of name by the searched person to these assesses was even a fact. So, according to the learned Authorised Representative, reopening cannot be done. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has fairly conceded to the above. 7. In view of the ratio of the above Tribunal order, the reopening is held to be invalid. Otherwise also, on merits when the depositor has confirmed the respective payments with explained source of income, the same cannot be added under s. 68 of the Act. 8. In the result, all the appeals are accepted.
-
2005 (2) TMI 470
Speculative Loss ... ... ... ... ..... amounting to Rs. 1,98,247 due to erroneous appreciation of facts and is accordingly deleted. 14. The controversy has been clearly set at rest by the learned CIT(A). The learned Departmental Representative could not convince the Bench otherwise. In the result, the findings of the learned CIT(A) are upheld. Of course, any inaccuracy existing in the accounts of M/s Nav Bharat Krishi Udyog (P) Ltd. should not be held against the genuine transactions of the assessee. This addition has been correctly deleted. This ground of appeal is also dismissed. 15. The next issue is taken by the Department against the deletion of the addition made for fictitious of loss of Rs. 33,199. This issue is related to the issue of suppression of stock. When the suppression of stock has been held to be not correct, this addition is a natural consequence thereof. Hence, this ground does not survive in the light of above finding. This ground is also dismissed. 16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
........
|
