|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 236 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 951
... ...
... ... ..... turn, the same has not been properly considered by the lower authorities. Similarly, I am of the considered opinion that assessee in the interest of justice should be given one more opportunity to substantiate that he has received rent from the agricultural land, which falls under agricultural income u/s 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The Assessing Officer shall decide both the issues afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 21st day of May Two Thousand and Ten
-
2010 (5) TMI 950
... ...
... ... ..... facts of the case and submissions made before us. We are of the view that the submissions of the revenue stand on sounder footing in this case than any other cases as further facts have come to light upon recording the statement of the assessee. Nonetheless, it is the case of the assessee that he has not conducted any business and the whole show was put up on the directions of Shri Dev Raj. In such a circumstance, he can only be taken as a name-lender, whose income may not exceed 8% of the amount, for which entries were provided. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Kamlesh & Others is made applicable to this case also subject to the right of the revenue to argue independently in the case of PACL (I) Ltd. that the expenditure claimed by way of job work was bogus. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid remarks. 5. This order was pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2010 soon after the hearing was concluded.
-
2010 (5) TMI 949
... ...
... ... ..... in the hands of the assessee company. 10. As regards the other issues raised in this appeal, we have noticed that the CIT(A) has not really adjudicated upon the same. We, therefore, remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the specific grievances raised by the assessee on the quantification of taxability of income and other consequences. 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year. Respectfully following the same, we partly uphold the grievance of the assessee in the matter indicated above and remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on some of the points. The observations made in our order for the assessment year 1998-99 will apply mutatis mutundi for this assessment year as well. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 21s t day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 945
... ...
... ... ..... perverse is a matter which requires consideration. Consequently, we heard arguments on the following substantial question of law - (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty, in respect of the aforesaid two items, amounting to ₹ 4.74 lacs approximately imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard the counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question on the basis of the record available inasmuch as the question is purely a legal question and does not require any further documents. Orders are reserved.
-
2010 (5) TMI 944
... ...
... ... ..... on India Ltd. 2008 (1) GLT 1020 for the reasons given above. 55. As regards the State of Orissa, it is an admitted position that it issued NIT for the first time on April 11, 2007 inviting bids for the manufacture and supply of HSRP in respect of the existing motor vehicles and vehicles to be registered in the State of Orissa. The said NIT was not taken to logical conclusion and a fresh NIT was issued on July 6, 2009 on BOO basis. In that NIT, inter alia, eligibility criteria has been provided that bidder should have experience of working in the field of HSRP having used the security features as mentioned in Rule 50 of 1989 Rules. However, NIT does not insist on conditions like experience in the foreign countries and minimum prescribed turnover from the said business. In what we have already discussed above, no case for judicial review or intervention in the said NIT is made out. 56. For the foregoing reasons, both appeals must fail and are dismissed with no order as to cost.
-
2010 (5) TMI 942
... ...
... ... ..... by the Tribunal were essentially findings of fact which had not been shown to be erroneous and perverse. In view of these uncontroverted facts, the conclusion of the Tribunal had been upheld. However, in the instant case, the assessee neither disclosed the full facts in his computation of income nor filed a revised return immediately after the Assessing Officer detected the mistake during A.Y. 1997-98. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the impugned case. 16. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed order passed by the CIT(A), we are satisfied that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced on 31st May, 2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 939
... ...
... ... ..... sion drawn by the Assessing Officer. 15. We are of the view that the books of account cannot be rejected without pointing out defects in the same. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defects whatsoever in the books of account maintained by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has relied on several judicial pronouncements before us; but we deem it appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of R.B. Bansil Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. CIT, 75 ITR 260 (Bom); Pandit Brothers Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punjab) and Ashok Retractories Co. P. Ltd, 279 ITR 457. Considering facts and circumstances prevailing in the present case, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Order of learned CIT(A) is therefore upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 14th Day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 937
... ...
... ... ..... his case will not be taken up in scrutiny and the amount of tax involved is low. 8. In both the assessment and penalty proceedings, assessee’s tax consultant appeared and furnished the above explanation which indicates that the mistake originated from the side of tax consultant. In the given facts and circumstances, the assessee’s claim of inadvertent error cannot be ruled out. Relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Escorts Finance Limited, we hold that the assessee’s claim of inadvertent error on the part of income-tax return consultant cannot be found to be implausible looking at the low amount of tax involved and facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, we delete the penalty. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 26th day of May, 2010 after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2010 (5) TMI 934
... ...
... ... ..... med income of the assessee for the reasons as mentioned in sub-para (b) of para 14.3 of the assessment order. If the totality of facts is considered, it can be said that it is not a case of revocable transfer of asset within the meaning of provisions of section 61 read with section 63 as the ownership of asset has not been transferred, therefore, such provisions are not applicable. To put it differently, the absolute ownership of an asset must be transferred at the first instance and the relevant agreement should provide for re-transfer of such ownership to the transferor later on to attract the provisions of section 61. However, in the present case, it is not so as the money has been given as a loan only. In this view of the matter, we hold that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 4th May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 933
... ...
... ... ..... ,25,000 15.4.04 1,00,000 28.4.04 1,00,000 24.4.04 5,00,000 22.5.04 30,000 26.6.04 1,25,000 28.5.04 1,70,000 1.6.04 30,000 9.6.04 2,70,000 10.6.04 30,000 16.6.04 2,00,000 17.6.04 25,000 30.6.04 25,000 2.7.04 1,25,000 6.7.04 65,000 7.7.04 1,00,000 9.7.04 1,00,000 12.7.04 1,00,000 Total 11,80,000 15,95,000 4,15,000 6.9.04 20,000 6.10.04 2,00,000 4.10.04 50,000 Total 70,000 2,00,000 1,30,000 14.10.04 60,000 60,000 Total 6,05,000 Less old cash available with the assessee by estimate, in the absence of any evidence 25,000 Total unexplained cash deposit 5,80,000 Accordingly the excess amount deposited in the bank ₹ 5,80,000/- is treated as unexplained amount. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt the figure of ₹ 5,80,00/- in place of ₹ 15.12,225/- adopted and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed. 10. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.5.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 927
... ...
... ... ..... his mind and held that the concealed income belonged to J.M. Shah and not to the assessee and, therefore, he could not have recorded or reached the requisite satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings against the assessee. The decision of the Allahabad High Court, to the extent stated above, strengthens the view to which we have taken.” 10. In view of the above facts, the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Bankim J Shah (supra) referred by Ld. counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that in the instant case the requisite satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings is without any basis and could not survive. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A). The orders of the lower authorities are reversed and this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/05/2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 924
Addition u/s 68 - Gift received by the assessee from his brother in USA - Deemed unexplained income of partnership - creditworthiness of the donor - HELD THAT:- We have considered the issue. Without going into the legalities of the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68, we are of the opinion that there was no case for treating the gift received by the assessee from his brother in USA as unexplained income of the assessee. As seen from the facts available on record the assessee’s brother is also partner in various firms in India and he has substantial capital towards his credit in India. The assessee’s brother is also filing returns in India on the profits from firms and other incomes earned in India.
As seen from the bank account furnished the assessee has large amount of credit as opening balance which was ignored by the A.O. in coming to the conclusion that the credits are only to the extent of US$16,500/- whereas the gift was to the extent of US $35,000. The opening credit of the month itself was about US $27,466. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the donor has creditworthiness to gift the amount to his brother and accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 923
... ...
... ... ..... ion in respect of the same bank accounts in the name of the Trust. We have held above that the bank accounts belong to the Trust and the amount lying in the bank accounts of the Trust is already considered in the case of the Trust by the Department and even refund has been granted to the Trust. We have also held that there is no evidence on record to prove that the amount lying in the bank account of the trust belong to the assessee. By following the reasons for decision in the appeals of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition on merit in the individual case of the assessee. We accordingly, do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 15 As a result, departmental appeal in ITA No.3339/Ahd/2007 is dismissed. 16. In view of the above finding, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 -05- 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 921
... ...
... ... ..... exemption u/s 54 of the Act if the long term capital gain arising on transfer of a residential property is invested within a certain period either in purchase or construction of another residential property. The undisputed facts are that the entire building was let out by the assessee for commercial purposes. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) held that though the municipal approval relating to the third and fourth floors are meant for residential purposes, yet, since the property has been let out for commercial purpose, the character of the property would remain as “Commercial property” only. Accordingly he rejected the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld CIT(A) since the property has been let out for commercial purposes. Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 5th May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 915
... ...
... ... ..... pta, Kunal Bahri, B. V. Balaram Das For the Respondent(s) Ajay Vohra, Kavita Jha, Akansha Aggarwal ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 913
... ...
... ... ..... rned Departmental Representative could not bring any material to controvert the above finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). From the order of assessment, it is observed that the assessee in engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of machinery parts. On the above facts, the explanation of the assessee that the technical drawing was an integral part of the above business of the assessee cannot be held as incorrect. Thus, the drawing charges in question being integral part of the main business of the assessee of manufacturing and selling of machinery and parts, we do not find any error in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), which is confirmed and this part of the ground of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Thus, this ground of appeal of revenue is partly allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed as above. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 21st day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 911
... ...
... ... ..... s Tribunal ultimately confirmed the estimate at 5 of the sales. When an income is deemed to have been earned by the assessee, the benefit of availability of such income should also be given to the assessee and such amount should be deemed to have been available for making investments in the subsequent years. Having regard to circumstances, I set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who is directed to verify the additions made for the immediately preceding year, towards deemed income, and such income should be treated as available with the assessee for the purpose of utilising the same towards introduction of capital and in the form of introduction of money as unsecured loans. Since these details were not available, I set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the same and to provide appropriate relief. 22. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced accordingly in the open Court on 05th day of May, 2017.
-
2010 (5) TMI 910
... ...
... ... ..... e case relied on by the learned counsel, the assessee filed appeal subsequent decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Similarly, in the case of Mahalakshmi Real Estates, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), and Hyderabad dated 18th December, 2009, some ambiguity was existed in filing of appeal and if the condonation is denied, it amounts to double taxation. Hence the delay was condoned by the Tribunal. In the instant case, no such ambiguity exists and the delay is mainly due to negligence on the part of the assessee and the assessee appears to have woke up and filed the present appeal when the department pursued recovery action. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we refuse to condone the delay. Since the appeal remains un-admitted on the grounds of limitation, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the issues. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on 14 -5-2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... confirmation letters and annexed documents were examined with the departmental data. Broadly, they were found to be in order.” Meaning thereby, that the AO had accepted the merits of the confirmations filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) by way of additional evidence. No adverse comment was offered to these confirmation letters from the creditors of the assessee company. It was on the basis of this unrebutted evidence plus the position that all the creditors of the assessee were having PAN and the transactions were through regular banking channels, that the ld. CIT(A) deleted and rightly so, the addition made by the AO. 21. Therefore, here, the case of the Department does not hold much water. Finding no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) concerning this issue, the same is hereby upheld. Ground No.4 is, accordingly, rejected. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is partly allowed, as indicated. Order pronounced in the open court on 14. 05.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 902
... ...
... ... ..... o question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” This decision was taken after considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills 2010 1 GSTR 66, CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal 2009 317 ITR 1, Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT 2007 291 ITR 519 and the Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 306 ITR 277. 12. Therefore, in view of the fact that assessee had raised a bonafide claim and has not filed any inaccurate particulars of income, we are of the view that penalty has been rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A) and therefore, we confirm this order. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 7th day of May, 2010.
........
|
