|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 709 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 992 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... n behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment of the appeal was filed on behalf of the assessee. o p /o p 3. Under the above circumstances, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decisions of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. C.W.T. 223 I.T.R. 480 and I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 I.T.D. 320 . Respectfully following the above decisions, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution. o p /o p 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 991 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or profession is allowable as deduction. Once interest is paid in respect of borrowed capital which borrowed capital is used for the purpose of business, be it revenue or capital, the deduction has to be allowed towards interest expenditure. o p /o p There is no dearth of judgements granting deduction under such circumstances. It is observed that proviso to section 36(1)(iii) inserted with effect from 1.4.2004 providing that no deduction of interest is to be allowed for acquisition of new assets for extension or existing business up to the date on which such asset is put to use, is prospective, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Core Health Care Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 194 (SC) . We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. o p /o p 35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 26th day of November, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 990 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ct of such assets cannot be decided on the basis of rate of interest. Rate of interest in respect of liquid cash is different whereas rental income in respect of building is different. It cannot be equated with interest. The AO should have given example to show that market rate of property situated similarly is lesser. There should be proper comparable cases. It was pointed out in the written submissions that similar rent was allowed in earlier years. Then following the principles of consistency, the claim of the trust has to be allowed unless there are material facts brought on record to show that market rent of the property used by the assessee trust are lesser as to what the trust has spent this year. In any case comparison with respect to interest is not a reasonable criteria. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No.3 of Revenue. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 30.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 989 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ccordingly. Grounds of cross objections no. 1 & 2 are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. o p /o p 11 Grounds of cross objection no.3 by the assessee reads as under o p /o p “Further, without prejudice to the allowability of receipt of ₹ 33,00,00 & ₹ 31,864/- as exempt on account of mutuality, the expenses incurred against such receipt should be allowed before taxing any receipt income.” o p /o p 12 After hearing both the parties, we find this ground is an alternate ground in the Cross Objection to the ground raised by the revenue in its appeal. Since we have already dismissed the ground raised by the revenue, therefore, this ground of the assessee in the Cross Objection has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. o p /o p 13 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. o p /o p Order pronounced on the 26th, day of Nov 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 988 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... (A) in this regard should be deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” o p /o p 5. From the above, it is evident that in principle the issues are covered in favour of the assessee. The proceeds on sale of the penny stocks are chargeable to tax under the head capital gains only provided the penny stocks in question are actually delivery based. However, it is not clear as on whether the scrips in questionare delivery based and the resultant gains are short term gains or not. For this limited purpose, the matter has to be referred to the files of the A.O. The A.O is directed to examine the correctness of the dates, delivery based or other wise and follow the decision of ours extracted above from our order in the case of Smt. Sunanda Jayprakash Surana. Accordingly grounds are allowed in favour of the assessee. o p /o p 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Orders pronounced in the open Court on 30th November, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 987 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... principles to the present case, we clearly find that shares which are held for more than 12 months and shown as investment in the balance sheet the intention was clearly to hold them as investment and not held as stock in trade. Where shares are held for more than 30 days, should be treated as investment and what is earned should be treated as short term capital gains or loss as the case may be which in the present case is short term capital loss of ₹ 1,70,841/-. Shares which are sold within 30 days should be treated as part of trade and therefore, sum of ₹ 2,94,847/- should be treated as business profit and not as short term capital gains. Thus sum of ₹ 59,69,498/- is treated as long term capital gains and Rs.(-) 1,70,841/- as short term capital loss and ₹ 2,94,847/- as business profit. Accordingly appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 12.11.10.
-
2010 (11) TMI 986 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... k work etc. and, therefore, a new asset has come into existence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the AO was justified in treating the portion of repairing expenses amounting to ₹ 6,53,212/- as capital in nature and his action is hereby confirmed. This ground is also rejected.” 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. We find from the above facts the assessee has carried out repair works and as noted from the bills raised, this is regarding building stair steps, RCC Chhajjs, slab beam, structure work, brick work etc. which is actually for extension of the existing asset. We find that nothing new asset has been emerged out of this repair and these are purely repairs liable as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we allow the claim of the assessee and this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 9. In the result, both the appeal of assessee are allowed partly as indicated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 10/12/2010
-
2010 (11) TMI 985 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... hat the assessee paid the outstanding liability in the subsequent year. After considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case and after going through the orders of the authorities, we find that the first appellate authority is perfectly justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer and hence no interference is called for in this regard. In view of the above, we uphold the finding of the first appellate authority and dismiss the ground raised on this issue. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No.820/Hyd/2010 12. This appeal is preferred against the penalty levied under section 271(1)© of the Act. Since we have dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.819/Hyd/2010, this penalty appeal of the revenue has become infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed as such. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on 30-11-2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 984 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ovisions for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. vs CIT 314 ITR 62 was concerned with an identical issue wherein identical provisions for warranty were made. o p /o p The apex court after elaborately dealing with the issue has held that the assessee was entitled to deduction for provision of warranty claims. In the case before us what the AO is trying is to make an addition to the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. o p /o p In our view, the plain reading of the provisions of clause (c) or (i) of Explanation (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 115(J) does not justify the action of the department. o p /o p 10. In the result, the departmental appeals are dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection for AY 2002-03 is dismissed and CO for AY 2001-02 is to be treated as allowed. Cross Objection for AY 2004-05 is partly allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 12.11.2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 983 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... e of the assessee for the assessment year under dispute. The Ld. CIT (A)’s stand in upholding the findings of the AO is also not justifiable for the reasons recorded supra. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The issue of applicability of s.2 (22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the fore going paragraphs, the assessee’s other grievance that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the actual tax liability of the relevant current year from the profits of that year for the purposes of computation of accumulated profits has not been addressed to. 9. The last ground of the assessee that the CIT (A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is not maintainable as charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 10. In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 982 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... )’s stand in upholding the findings of the AO was also not justifiable for the reasons recorded supra. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The issue of applicability of s.2 (22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the fore-going paragraphs, the assessee’s other grievance that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the actual tax liability of the relevant current year from the profits of that year for the purposes of computation of accumulated profits has not been addressed to. 11. The last ground of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is not maintainable as charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 12. In the result, The assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 981 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ar under dispute. The Ld. CIT (A)’s stand in upholding the findings of the AO was also not justifiable for the reasons recorded supra. It is ordered accordingly. 8.9. Since the issue of applicability of s.2 (22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee’s other grievance that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the actual tax liability of the relevant current year from the profits of that year for the purposes of computation of accumulated profits has not been addressed to. 9. The last ground of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is not maintainable as charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 10. In the result The assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 980 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... of lender company, but its partners are director of company from whom loan has been received by the assessee firm. Under these circumstances, the loan so received cannot be brought to tax net as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of assessee firm who is neither a registered shareholder nor a beneficial shareholder of the company M/s. Resource Combine Pvt. Ltd. from whom loan was received. Ld. DR fairly conceded the proposition laid down by the Special Bench with regard to taxability of deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee who is not a shareholder. Therefore, in view of the facts of the present appeal and the aforesaid decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal wherein the decision from Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been duly considered, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Finally the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned respective counsel at the conclusion of hearing on 4th November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 979 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... l 5 by the revenue reads as under “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in relying upon the findings of CIT(A) that interest u/s 234B of the Act was not chargeable in this case as income of the assessee was liable to deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the I T Act 1961.” 24 After considering the rival submissions made by both the parties the Tribunal in assesee’s own case in ITA No.317/Mum/2007 order dated 16.7.2010 for Assessment Year 2003-04 has discussed the issue and has held that charging of interest u/s 234B is consequential in nature and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the interest accordingly. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, this ground of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 25 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose Order pronounced on the 30th, day of Nov 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 978 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... nant factor in the transaction and not the hiring of truck to transport the same as the assessee. Since the predominant factor in the contract was sale of milk, the contract cannot be turned as for carrying out any work to invoke the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. The Ld CIT in our view was not justified in treating the hiring of truck to supply milk in isolation as work contract to attract the provision of sec. 194C of the Act without appreciation that predominant fact behind was purchase/sale of milk. The assessment order in this regard, whereby no disallowance was made under provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the act cannot be, therefore treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to attract the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act. We, thus, while setting aside revisional order, restore the assessment order on this issue. The Ground No. 5 is accordingly allowed. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-11-2010
-
2010 (11) TMI 977 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rticulars of income. When the AO has not doubted the sale consideration actually received by the assessee. Even otherwise, the valuation u/s 50C (1) being the valuation for the purpose of stamp duty is not final and conclusive and again subject to the valuation by the DVO, as per the sub-section (2) of the section 50C. Thus, the valuation of the property for the purpose of capital gain is highly subjective in nature and varies from person to person. In the absence of any finding that the assessee received the sale consideration more than what was admitted in the return of income as well as in the sale document, mere addition by applying the deeming provisions does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is not warranted and the same is deleted. 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2010
-
2010 (11) TMI 976 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... any findings on the specific issues now raised in the additional grounds raised before us, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act afresh in accordance with law in the light of our aforesaid observations and of course, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court in CIT vs.Tollaram Hassomal,298 ITR 22(MP).Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) may have any independent inquiries made in order to ascertain the correct facts, if he feels necessary. With these observations, ground no.1 in the appeal is disposed of 7. No additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed, but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 12-11-2010
-
2010 (11) TMI 975 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tions is only notional expenses and therefore, it should be added back to that extent in the computation of total income under the I. T. Act. The dispute in the present case before us is altogether different and, therefore, this judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court is of no help to the revenue in the present case. 11. In view of above discussion, we have noted that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court cited by Ld. D.R. and also the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court followed by the A.O. are not applicable in the present case whereas, the issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and hence, by following the same judgement of Bombay High Court in preference to the Tribunal decision cited by Ld. D.R., we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). 12. In the result, all the four appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 13. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 19th Nov., 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 974 - ITAT MUMBAI
Stay of realization of the total outstanding demand with interest - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to grant stay on realization of demand - assessment order has been framed which is in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C - HELD THAT:- As the assessment order has been framed which is in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C of the I T Act and therefore, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal directly.
The assessee in the instant case has also not moved any application before the Revenue authorities seeking stay of realization of the outstanding demand and has directly approached the Tribunal for stay of realization of the demand. From the various decisions filed, it is found that different views are available regarding the approach before the Tribunal directly for stay of realization of demand.
In view of the decision of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BROSWEL PHARMACEUTICAL INC. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER. [2004 (1) TMI 295 - ITAT ALLAHABAD] it is not mandatory on the part of the assessee to move application before the Revenue Authorities for granting of stay of outstanding demand. There are no merit in the arguments advanced by the ld DR that the stay application should be rejected outright since the assessee has not moved any petition before the Revenue Authorities seeking stay of the demand. Thus, seeking stay before the lower authorities is directory and not mandatory.
Thus, the assessee has a prima facie case. However, the assessee, in the instant case could not satisfactorily explain its financial hardship and the balance of convenience. The assessee is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 1.50 crores before 31.12.2010 and the balance demand is stayed till the disposal of the appeal or for a period of six months from the date of this order whichever is earlier.
Further, the request for early hearing is also granted subject to payment of the amount of 1.50 crores and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 13.1.2011. No fresh notice is required to be issued as the order itself is deemed to be service of notice of hearing to both sides.
The Stay Application is partly allowed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 973 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the peak credit minus income declared by the assessee which is worked out to ₹ 31440/- (130000 - 98560). Accordingly, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 31440/- only. 5. Against this order the revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a clear finding that during the year there were series of deposits and withdrawals in the bank account and the maximum balance at a particular time was only ₹ 1,30,000/-. Hence, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly taken that amount as peak credit and from there he has reduced the income declared by the assessee. We find that there is no infirmity in the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we affirm the same. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/11/2010.
............
|
