|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 182 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 1091
... ...
... ... ..... er of Income Tax Vs S. Dhanbal decided on 05.09.2008 and ITA No. 611/2007 titled as Rohitasava Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax decided on 20.03.2008 by different Division Benches of this court. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1090
... ...
... ... ..... is no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as this common question in the two appeals is concerned. 5. It is submitted that though the aforesaid is the only question raised in ITA 915/2006 for the assessment year 1991-92. In ITA 649/2006 for the assessment year 1993-94, a further issue has been raised that the ESI and PF deducted was not deposited within time and thus deduction for the same is not available to the assessee-company. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in CIT v. Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. 2007 292 ITR 479 to contend that if such deposits have been made within the extended period of time, the deductions are admissible. Learned counsel for the appellant/Department cannot dispute that this issue is no more res integra as in the present case also the deposits have been made within the extended period of time. There is no merit in respect of this ground. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1083
... ...
... ... ..... extent that they confirm to being either charitable or religious in nature. We are also of the view that when the assessee seek exemption u/s.11 of the Act there are adequate provision namely section 13(1) (a)& (b) of the Act to deny exemption in the event of the income not to being spent in the manner contemplated by the Trust deed. At the time of grant of registration it was open to the respondent to only look into the objects of the Trust and to see if they are of the nature contemplated by Section 11 of the Act i.e., charitable and/or religious. 7. We are also of the view that the decisions relied upon by respondent in the impugned order are on different facts and will not be applicable to the case of the appellant for the reasons already given. For the reasons stated above, we direct the respondent to allow registration of the Assessee u/s.12AA of the Act. 8. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th February, 2012.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1081
... ...
... ... ..... herefore following the same, we hold that provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. In these circumstances providing relief to the assessee in the order passed u/s.154 of the Act by the AO becomes academic. In other words if the assessee is not covered by MAT provisions when the original order was passed then order of the AO granting relief under the same provisions while passing rectification orders does not alter the legal position. In these circumstances order passed by the CIT u/s.263 of the Act is not in conformity of law. Secondly, as submitted by the assessee, order passed by the CIT is barred by time limit prescribed by the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, as held in earlier years, action of the CIT cannot be endorsed. Appeal filed by the assessee for the AY. under consideration is allowed. Appeals of the assessee bank for the AYs. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-07 stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 10th April, 2013
-
2009 (3) TMI 1077
... ...
... ... ..... eet as on 31st March, 2004 was of ₹ 59,42,561.39. The order of the AO is based on certain presumptions and conjectures. He is not able to prove the nexus between the borrowed fund and invested in purchase of shares as well as diversion of borrowed fund for non-business purpose. 22. Similarly, in the case of Sri Om Prakash Chirania the AO has failed to prove that the interest-pertains to investment made in purchase of shares and diverted the same for non-business purpose. He has simply worked out a formula and disallowed the same without proving any nexus between the borrowed fund as well as the utilization of shares. In view of the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Courts/Tribunal we uphold the orders of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. 23. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose whereas the cross-objections of the assessees and the Revenue's appeals are dismissed as stated above.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1076
... ...
... ... ..... Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1069
... ...
... ... ..... hares as genuine even though the contract notes and bills of brokers found during the course of survey were found to be bogus as a result of investigation carried out by the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings ? 2. We have heard both parties. We also considered the orders of the Tribunal which are relied on the findings of fact recorded by the another bench of the Tribunal in the case of the husband of the respondent viz. Mukesh Marolia. Revenue is unable to point out any perversity of the said findings. We are also informed that the appeal filed in the husband’s case is dismissed for non prosecution. In our opinion, the questions as framed would not arise. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1067
... ...
... ... ..... sonable or rational explanation for not filling up the vacancies, the explanation given is detrimental to the public interest and the interest of the Revenue. 21. We have also seen from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that there is no explanation whatsoever given by the Union of India for not filling up the vacancies except some proposed amendment to the Rules. Before us also there is no other explanation forthcoming. Consequently, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petitions and approve the view taken by the Tribunal. The Union of India is, therefore, directed to process the case for the appointment of the Respondents against the respective vacancies to which they may be entitled and thereafter place the matter before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for further directions. The needful should be done by the Union of India within a period of 8 weeks from today. 22. The writ petitions are dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1061
... ...
... ... ..... Amey Nargolkar, Adv., Mr. Kul Bharat, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1055
... ...
... ... ..... me Tax Act, 1961 in respect of octroi collected by the agent appointed by the assessee ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that .octroi. collectible by the assessee is different than .toll. leviable by the assessee and thus is not within the ambit of 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
-
2009 (3) TMI 1054
... ...
... ... ..... Chapter XIV-B is intended to provide a mode of assessment of undisclosed income, which has been detected as a result of search. As the statutory provisions go to show, it is not intended to be a substitute for regular assessment. Its scope and ambit is limited in that sense to materials unearthed during search. It is in addition to the regular assessment already done or to be done. The assessment for the block period can only be done on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing officer. Evidence found as a result of search is clearly relatable to section 132 and 131A. 8. In view of our discussion above we find there is no room for interference in the impugned judgment. The findings returned by the Tribunal and the CIT(A) are pure findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1050
... ...
... ... ..... items of hundis which had not been explained by the assessee.” 21.4 In the light of the above discussion, we find that the AO has no power to admit fresh claim otherwise than revised return but appellate authorities including CIT(A) & ITAT have power to admit such claim. Without prejudice to the above finding, we admit the assessee’s claim which is in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra). In the interest of natural justice and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue on merit in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced on this 23rd day of March, 2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1048
... ...
... ... ..... have visited. The expenditures clearly are for the purpose of business. Once there is a business nexus, the department ought to have accepted reasonable expenses incurred in relation thereto. In the case of Continental Carriers (P) Ltd. (supra), an identical issue came up before the ITAT and the Tribunal has accepted much larger percentage of such expenditure. Although it cannot be factually stated that the two cases have identical facts but at least the defects pointed out in both these cases are almost identical in nature. In our view, the assessee has a large export turn over and has also large purchases of raw material from the countries wherein travel to these countries are disputed by the revenue. In our view, the claim of the assessee is reasonable and should have been accepted. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on the issue in question is, therefore, deleted. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court..
-
2009 (3) TMI 1047
... ...
... ... ..... ground between the parties that the issue now stands concluded by order dated 10.09.2008 rendered in Tax Appeal No.444 of 2008 in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ahmedabad-II Vs. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd., wherein identical issue was involved and the Tribunal's order has been upheld by the High Court. During course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer having not processed the claim of depreciation on merits, the Assessing Officer must be directed to grant depreciation on written down value of the assets in question. (4) In light of the aforesaid order dated 10.09.2008 it is held that the transactions were genuine transactions and the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing claim of depreciation. All the three questions stand answered accordingly. The Assessing Officer shall now process the claim of depreciation in accordance with law. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1044
... ...
... ... ..... ctually did not fall under the ambit of that section . 16. In the case of Frontline Offshore Exploration (India) Ltd. cited by the Revenue this Tribunal was of the opinion that where an element of profit is involved and the same is paid by the assessee then tax cannot be deducted at source on the entire gross amount and not on the portion of the profit embedded in the payment. In this case also the facts are distinguishable as the recipient has rendered some part of the services in India. Further, the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in JCIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (supra) is fully applicable on the facts of the case. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we uphold the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and decide this issue in favour of the Revenue. 17. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronouncement to this effect was made in the open Court on 06.03.2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1040
... ...
... ... ..... by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for doubtful debts while computing profit under Section 115JB?? Learned counsel for the Appellant fairly concedes that first two questions are covered by a Judgment dated 27.02.2009 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA No.873/2008 entitled Commissioner of Income Tax-IV ?vs- INSILCO Limited which is assessee?s own case relating to immediately preceding assessment year. He also admits that the third question already stands answered against the Revenue in 2008 305 ITR 409, entitled Commissioner of Income Tax ?vs- HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. This Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1039
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee was guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of an amount. In the instant case, it is observed from the order of the AO that he has not arrived at a final conclusion as to whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income, or the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The word “and” used in the order levied penalty clearly indicates that the AO could not clearly specify that assessee was guilty of either concealment of income or of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, in view of the decision of the jurisdictional high Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co.(Supra), the order of the AO suffers from a legal error and therefore, bad in law. We therefore, set aside the order of the Lower authorities and delete the penalty of ₹ 23.42.010/-. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 19/03/2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1038
... ...
... ... ..... irst question is concerned, we had considered the issue in the case of CIT Vs. Saxeria in Income Tax Appeal No. 2318/Mum/94 decided on 4.2.2008. We had therein considered the ratio of the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. 238 ITR 445. We had also noted that the Special Leave Petition against the said order was dismissed. We had approved the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. In our opinion, the finding by the tribunal that the receipt amounts to capital receipt cannot be faulted with. The assessee had taken loan for the purpose of expansion of the existing industrial undertaking in the instant case for the production of sugar. Under the scheme available, on expansion the assessee was entitled for sale of additional quota of sugar. The sale proceeds were to be adjusted toward the repayment of loan taken by the assessee. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the same would amount to capital receipts. The first question also would not arise and consequently appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1036
... ...
... ... ..... ned counsel submits that considering the accounting practices additions have to be made at three stages which are (1) Purchase of goods, (2) Sales of Goods and (3) Inventory. In the instant case, it is submitted that what has been allowed is only in the inventory and not in the case of purchase and sale considering that the appellant was following the non-inclusive method of accounting. Considering the above, in our opinion, the order does not require to be interfered with except to extend that the A.O. will follow the law in terms of Section 145A considering that the judgment of Delhi High Court did not deal with this issue. 3. With the above observations, appeal stands dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1030
... ...
... ... ..... contention raised by the learned Departmental Representative regarding insertion of s. 292BB of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1st April, 2008, the assessee cannot take the plea that assessment should have been made invalid merely for the reason that no notice under s. 143(2) of the Act was issued or was issued after twelve months from the date of filing of return of income. In this regard, recently, the Delhi Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra), held that s. 292BB, inserted by Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1st April, 2008 has no retrospective effect and is to be construed prospectively. In this view of the matter, we reject the aforesaid contention of the learned Departmental Representative. 16. Since we have quashed the assessment order framed by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), therefore, we do not think it necessary to decide the appeal on merits. 17. In the result, appeal stands allowed.
........
|
