|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 236 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 709
... ...
... ... ..... December 15, 2006 is invalid and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the proceedings under section 147 of the Act has been initiated by the Assessing Officer without satisfying the conditions enumerated in the proviso to section 147 of the Act. We, therefore, cancel the assessment order made under section 143(3)/147 of the Act dated December 15, 2006 being without jurisdiction. In the light of the view we have taken above, the other grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee with regard to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, and the ground raised by the Revenue with regard to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC vis-a-vis under section 80-IB have become redundant, and, therefore, they need no adjudication at this stage, and are, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, and that of the Revenue is dismissed. This decision was pronounced immediately after the hearing was over on May 13, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 708
... ...
... ... ..... year 2002-03 that the investment in shares has come down to Rs. 1.58 crores as against own funds of Rs. 6.84 crores. It was also submitted that investments in shares have been made in the earlier years. On consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that the issue is same as is considered in the assessment year 2002-03 in I. T. A. No. 2407/ Ahd/2005. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2002-03 and no independent finding is given. We, therefore, following the order of the assessment year 2002-03 in I. T. A. No. 2407/Ahd/2005, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire disallowance of the interest. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Departmental appeal is dismissed. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. The order pronounced on May 7, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 706
... ...
... ... ..... ot be rectified under section 154. The sine qua non of rectification power is existence of a glaring, patent and obvious mistake, which does not cover each and every decided issue which may result in possible loss of revenue. In our view, the rectifications made in the impugned order under section 154 fall in the category of review of the order by the Assessing Officer which is not covered under section 154. Consequently, we hold that the impugned order under section 154 does not conform to the provisions in this behalf, i.e., rectification of mistake. Under these circumstances, we have no alternate but to set aside the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 and allow the assessee's claim in this behalf. Since we have held the proceedings under section 154 to be bad in law we do not go into merits. 11. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed on the above terms. 12. The order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 705
... ...
... ... ..... aiming depreciation at 10 percent Hence, it is clear that the assessee has sold its depreciable asset, the sale value of which has to be adjusted against the concerned block of assets. The assessee s claim that there was only land which was sold remains unsubstantiated and the same is contrary to the facts on record. Admittedly the assessee had shown the land and building figure in a composite manner and had been claiming depreciation on the same from the assessment year 1993-94 to the assessment year 2001-02 for nine years. Now in these circumstances the assessee cannot plead that the asset sold, was not depreciable asset, which is completely contrary to the facts borne out from the records. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and accordingly we uphold the same. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on May 14, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 704
TDS u/s 194C - payment made by the assessee is under a contract to the contract workers - additions in the remand proceedings - as submitted by the assessee that the assessee sold seeds to farmers by raising invoices and, thereafter purchased the multiplied potatoes against invoice. The agreement was entered into to prevent the farmers from selling the multiplied seeds to other parties. The company was not making any payment in the nature of job work - HELD THAT:- The assessee in order to facilitate the proper production had advanced the amount to the farmers by way of seeds and cash in advance. The cost of seed and the amount so advanced have been adjusted against the sale proceeds. The conclusion of the AO that the farmer has to produce the potatoes seeds of desired size, in our considered opinion, is not correct. The growing of potatoes is a natural process. The size of potatoes depends upon the nature of land, the quantity of manures and fertilizers added, the quantity of water and the nature of the beds raised whether they were compact or porous enough to allow the size of potatoes to grow freely. The operations carried out by the farmers are purely agricultural operations. They cannot be by any stretch of imagination be said that they were in the nature of work contract.
The assessee had entered into agreement with the farmers to prevent them from selling the seeds so grown in the open market. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia).
Expenditure claimed on labour charges - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - certain payments were made by the assessee to labour contractors against the supply of labour for harvesting, grading and packing, etc. The assessee-company could not furnish confirmations of labour charges - HELD THAT:- AO disallowed the payment on the presumption that the payment was made to the contractors and the assessee had kept the payments below Rs.20,000 deliberately in order to circumvent the provisions of section 194C. If the payment has been made to a contractor, the payer has to deduct tax at source on even amounts less than Rs. 20,000. There is nothing on record to suggest that the payments on account of labour charges were made to contractors. On the contrary the assessee had made payment to labourers directly.
Therefore, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable. The AO had made disallowance on ad hoc basis out of total labour charges - Since no material has been brought on record, in our considered opinion the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Accordingly, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition.
Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 703
... ...
... ... ..... ered by the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench rendered for the preceding assessment year 1987-88 in the assessee s own case through its order dated February 16, 2010. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal passed for the assessment year 1987-88, we hold that the order of the Assessing Officer reopening the assessment for the impugned assessment year 1988-89 is bad in law and, therefore, set aside. As the reopening of the assessment has been held to be without juris- diction and been set aside, the appeal filed by the Revenue becomes infruc- tuous and therefore, liable to be dismissed. As these appeals have been decided on the ground of jurisdiction itself, the other grounds raised on contentions of merit have become academic and, therefore, not considered. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous. The order pronounced on Thursday, the 13th May, 2010, at Bangalore.
-
2010 (5) TMI 702
Employees' contribution to provident fund - allowable as deduction - HELD THAT:- the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] according to which contribution to employees' State insurance is allowable as deduction if the same is paid before the due date of filing the return. The hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] following the aforesaid issue the hon'ble apex court has held that the employees' contribution to provident fund would be allowed if the same is paid before the due date of filing return.
Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the order of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2010 (5) TMI 698
Disallowance of payment to Retired Partners and subscription fees - payments paid to retired partners and to spouses/nominees of deceased partners in terms of clause 22 of the partnership deed - AO noted that the assessee had excluded from the business income a sum being the amount paid to ex-partners and spouses of deceased partners - assessee has explained that the retired partners and the spouses of deceased partners were entitled to certain payments as per Clause – 22 of the partnership deed as computed as per Clause – 23A and 23B - HELD THAT:- Various factors mentioned in clause – 22 above, a retiring partner or spouse or nominee of a deceased partner is entitled to certain payments specified in clause 23A & 23B. These clauses provide that retiring partners and spouse/nominee of deceased partners are entitled to receive payments @20% of their shares on the date of retirement in future profits of the firm for certain number of years depending upon the length of service rendered. Further the clause 28 provides that the payments mention in clause 22 shall be a prior charge on the receipts of the firm.
The case of the assessee is that the payments made as per clause – 22 are a prior and overriding charges on the receipts of the firm and, therefore, these are diversion of income by overriding title and thus are required to be excluded from the profit. We respectfully following the decision of assessee own case as relying in the case of Sheetal Das Tirathas [1960 (11) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] as held that in case, by some obligation, income is diverted before it reaches the assessee the amount is deductible . The Tribunal after considering clause 22, 23 and 28 of the partnership deed held that there was an obligation in this case and income diverted before it reached the assessee and it was not a case of application of income. The Tribunal also observed that the revenue authorities had allowed the said deduction from the year 1990 onwards and, therefore, could not make any deviation in the subsequent year the factual and legal position remaining the same. The Tribunal accordingly held that the deduction was allowable.
Interest on borrowed funds advanced to the sister concern - said concern had utilized the loan for taking office premises on lease - A.O observed that though the assessee was a partner in the sister concern but the expenditure relating to the sister concern could not be allowed as deduction - deduction of interest has been claimed under the head “business” against the “ other source” allowed by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- The assessee had also received interest of Rs.24,68,079/- from the sister concern and the interest paid is only Rs. 23,15,275/-. The CIT(A) has held that interest income received has to be treated as income from other sources and the claim of interest payment of Rs. 23,15,275/- has to be allowed as deduction u/s 57(iii). We see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), in allowing the deduction as the A.O has not disputed the fact that borrowed funds had been utilized for advancing to sister concern from which the assessee had received interest and, therefore, interest expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be allowed as a deduction.
Claim of deduction under the head “business” as reasonable as the loans had been advanced to the sister concern in which the assessee had deep interest to be used for the business of the sister concern. The loan was therefore on commercial expediency and interest income has therefore to be treated as incidental business income and claim of deduction of interest has to be allowed under the head “business”. The order of CIT(A) is upheld with modification as mentioned.
Allowability of interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- As we have already held that loan had been advanced to sister concern on commercial expediency and, therefore, interest income as well as interest expenditure have to be considered under the head “business”. Accordingly we hold that interest expenditure has to be allowed under the head “business
Disallowance of various expenditure - bills in the name of sister concern of assessee - items of expenditure disallowed related to publication of quarterly flash, foreign travel, preparation of name plates, reimbursement of part of expenditure relating to an employee sent on deputation - HELD THAT:- There is no material produced by revenue to controvert the claim made by the assessee that the publication of quarterly newsletter was by the assessee and there is also no dispute that the expenditure had been incurred by the assessee. Similarly the foreign travel expenditure had been incurred by the assessee.The assessee had also given the name of the client for which the foreign travel had been undertaken by Shri Farid and no material has been produced by the revenue to disprove the claim of the assessee. Therefore, mainly on the ground that the bill was in the name of the sister concern the claim cannot be disallowed.
As regards the employee Shri Girish, there is no dispute that the he was an employee of the assessee who had been deputed to the sister concern and the amount not paid by the sister concern had been reimbursed by the assessee. The claim in our view has to be allowed on commercial expediency. In so far as the expenditure on preparation of name plate is concerned, there is common bill in relation to three parties and the assessee had paid its share of expenditure. The CIT(A) has allowed Rs.8000/- on the ground that the assessee paid Rs. 8000/- only. However, we find that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.8840/- as per voucher placed - The entire claim is thus allowable . We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the additions made in respect of all items.
Computation of remuneration to working partner allowable as deduction under section 40(b)(v) - A.O had also excluded the share of profit of the firm in the other firms appearing in the P&L Account while computing remuneration allowable on the ground that the said income was exempt in the hands of the assessee under section 10(2A) - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decisions in the case of S.P. Equipment & Services [2009 (9) TMI 637 - ITAT JAIPUR-A] we hold that various item of income assessed as income from other sources and excluded from the purview of book profit computation have to be included while computing the remuneration allowable as deduction. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly set aside on this point and the claim of the assessee is allowed.
A.O had also excluded the share of profit of the firm in the other firms appearing in the P&L Account while computing remuneration allowable on the ground that the said income was exempt in the hands of the assessee under section 10(2A). There is no dispute that such income is exempt in the hands of the assessee u/s. 10(2A). Therefore, remuneration allowable proportionate to such income which is exempt has to be disallowed under section 14A. Such income has either to be excluded from the book, profit or incase it is included in the book profit then remuneration allowable as computed in the section 40(b)(v) in relation to such exempt income has to be disallowed. In this case the A.O has excluded the share of profit from other firm from the book profit which had the effect of disallowing the remuneration allowable proportionate to such exempt income. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in such approach as expenditure relatable to exempt income has to be disallowed. The order of CIT(A) on this point is confirmed.
Computation of interest chargeable u/s 234B - whether the interest payable under section 234B has for the purpose of section 140A is to be computed with respect to the tax payable on the returned income or the income determined in the regular assessment? - HELD THAT:- We find that the section 140(1B) provides that interest payable under section 234B, has to be computed on the amount by which the advance paid falls short of assessed tax and the assessed tax for the purpose of this sub-section has been defined in the Explanation to mean the tax on total income as declared in the return as reduced by tax deducted/collected at source etc. Therefore, we agree with the submission made by ld. A.R that the interest payable under section 234B for the purpose of adjustment against the tax paid under section 140A has to be computed with respect to assessed tax determined on the basis of total income declared in the return. But this is only for the limited purpose of adjustment of payment made u/s. 140A against interest payable under section 234B while making computation of interest payable by the assessee under section 234B,which has to be computed with respect to the total income determined in regular assessment as per the definition of assessed tax given in section 234B. The assessee has also followed the same procedure with which we agree
Both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas those of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 697
Computation of business income - choosing the system of accounting - Addition made on the basis of percentage of completion method as per revised Accounting Standard-7 (AS-7), the assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developer - CIT(A) held that it is AS-9 that is applicable to the case of the assessee
HELD THAT:- As undisputed appellant is a developer and not a contractor. A reading of section 145 of the Act shows that the business income which is assessable under the income Tax Act is to be computed in accordance with the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee unless such system of accounting is defective and /or from such system of accounting, profit cannot be deduced. Thus, in our considered opinion, the option for choosing the system of account is with the assessee and not with the Learned Assessing Officer provided the system chosen by the assessee is consistently followed by him and such system is not a defective system
Provisions of AS-7 cannot override the provisions of section 145 in so far as the computation of business income under the Income Tax Act for the purpose of determining assessable income is concerned. A reading of section 145 of the Act shows that the business income which is assessable under the income Tax Act is to be computed in accordance with the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee unless such system of accounting is defective and /or from such system of accounting, profit cannot be deduced.
We find that AO has brought no material on record to show that the system of accounting adopted by the assessee for the year under appeal was not consistently followed by the assessee or the system adopted was a defective system. In our considered view, even a project completion method is also a recognised system of accounting. Simply, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has recommended percentage completion method does not mean that project completion method if consistently followed by the assessee, the same is not a bonafide system of accounting or the same is a defective system of accounting.
The CIT (A) has recorded a finding after perusing the assessment records of the subsequent years that the assessee has offered for taxation its income in the subsequent year as per the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the CIT (A) and therefore, the same is upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 690
Whether even if the assessment is made u/s 143(1), while reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148, the assessing officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the reason to believe must have a live link with the formation of the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment
-
2010 (5) TMI 688
Reopening of assessment – beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year – change of opinion - disallowing the claim of bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) – Held that:- Reopening of the assessment after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the conditions of the first proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act have not been satisfied by the Assessing Officer in this case - assessee disclosed all primary facts before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act regarding claim of bad debt. The Assessing Officer after examining the issue accepted the claim of the assessee. Therefore, it is clear case of mere change of opinion for reopening of assessment which is bad in law - assessee has written off the bad debt as irrecoverable in its account - initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act is not in accordance with law - Assessing Officer, therefore, was not justified in initiating the reassessment proceedings - Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance on account of bad debt – in favor of assessee
-
2010 (5) TMI 687
Cash credit ... ... ... ... ..... to the observations made by us as above. In the result, all the three cross-objections of the assessee are allowed. 6. Now, we take up three appeals filed by the revenue. In view of our decision with regard to three cross-objections of the assessee, various grounds raised by the revenue in its appeals have become of academic interest only because as already held by us while deciding three cross-objections of the assessee that no addition can be made in the hands of this assessee in any of the three years on the basis of embezzlement because the allegation of embezzlement was quashed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and this decision of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court. Under these facts and circumstances, the appeals of the revenue have become infructuous and are being dismissed as such. 7. In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the three cross-objections of the assessee are allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 686
Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings
-
2010 (5) TMI 685
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... unal. Since the exact nature of the materials were not deducible fromthe judgment, we had no other way but to direct the revenue to pinpointthose materials which were not allegedly considered by the Tribunal.Therefore, when these matters were again heard on 11-5-2010, we had to specifically ask the revenue to explain the nature of materialsthat have to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of the directionsgiven by the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court. But still we have not actedon technicalities. We have gone through all the materials available onrecord, including the materials highlighted by the revenue. 15. As substantially (discussed in paras above, we find that the additions made by the assessing authority are not sustainable in these cases. Defacto speaking we do not find any reason to deviate from the views taken by the Hon rsquo ble Members who heard and disposed of the appeals in the first round. 16. In the result, these two appeal are treated as allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 684
Charitable/religious purpose ... ... ... ... ..... self-dependent. No specific instance has been brought on record by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax to show that what is stated by the assessee is not correct. Rather the assessee has submitted all the documents as contended in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, we find no justification in non-grant of renewal of certificate under section 80G. Therefore, we direct the learned Commissioner of Income-tax to grant renewal to the assessee under section 80G. 7. The case law relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax in the case of Self Employers Service Society (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case as in that case the petitioner society did not do any charitable work during the relevant period and the activity of that society was for the purpose of generating income for the members of the society and thus, it was held that society was not entitled to get registration. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 683
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - agency PE - nature of the business activities carried out by the assessee - whether assessee had a fixed place of business through which he was carrying out his business? - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the consignment stock of the assessee was stored at specific physical locations but this storage was under control of the airlines and the assessee did not have any place at his disposal in the sense that he could carry out his business from that place.
The existence of PE in a country cannot warrant or justify taxation of all the profits arising to a foreign enterprise in that country. The business with regard to that consignment is over when that consignment is given for standby purposes to the airline. It is thus clear that not only that the assessee did not have any right to use the location of consignment stock, such a location was also not used for the purposes of assessee’s business. There is also no projection of the assessee at this physical location in the sense that the business of the assessee is not carried out, or sought to be carried out or even projected, from these locations. When the physical locations at which consignment stock is kept do not project the assessee, it cannot be said that these locations constitute PE of the assessee.
As a matter of fact, there is no sale involved in this transaction, and as such, there is no question of delivery for sale. In view of these discussions, it is clear that the revenue authorities have not been able to establish that the assessee had a PE in India. It is a settled position of law, as noted by the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. [2005 (6) TMI 226 - ITAT DELHI-A], that the onus is on the revenue to demonstrate that a PE of the foreign enterprise exists in India. That onus is not discharged. Having said that, we may also add that, in our considered view, the business model of the assessee-company is such that in the above arrangements, a PE in the source location does not come into existence.
We are of the considered opinion that the assessee-company did not have any PE in India, and, accordingly, the entire income attributable to the India operations could not have been taxed in India. The grievances raised against quantification of income attributable to the PE, under article 7(1), are thus rendered infructuous. To that extent, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and vacate the orders of the authorities below.
In the case before us, as evident from a plain reading of the consideration clause in the agreement between the parties, consideration for use of replacement components is distinct and separate and the same can perhaps be neatly segregated from the overall receipts. In this view of the matter, non-taxability under article 7 will still mean that application of article 13 is to be considered and adjudicated upon. However, since this aspect of the matter has not been heard by any the authorities below, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to file of the CIT(A) for limited adjudication on this aspect of the matter.
We are not inclined to uphold the orders of the authorities below on the issue of existence of the PE and for quantification of taxable income. The matter is, however, remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on the question of taxability, if any, of consideration for use, or right to use, of industrial, scientific or commercial equipment contained in the payments made by the airlines to the assessee-company. We make it clear that our above observations should not influence the decision of the CIT(A) on merits of this issue, and that the CIT(A) will decide the matter in accordance with the law, by way of a speaking order and after giving due and fair opportunity of hearing to the parties. We direct so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner and in the terms indicated above.
-
2010 (5) TMI 682
Interest, chargeable as ... ... ... ... ..... der section 195. The short issue requiring our adjudication is whether or not levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, in respect of income from such payments received by the non resident, is justified. While the Assessing Officer has levied the interest under sections 234B and 234C, the CIT(A) has deleted the same by following his orders for the earlier years. 7. The learned representatives agree that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by a large number of decision of th Tribunal, including Special Bench decision in the case of Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT 2005 95 ITD 269 (Delhi) which has since been approved by the Hon rsquo ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) v. NGC Network Asia LLC 2009 313 ITR 187 (Bom.). Respectfully following these decisions, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 8. Ground No. 2 is also thus dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 681
Income escaping assessment ... ... ... ... ..... intended to be given by the legislature to the assessee. It is also well-settled that where there are two possible interpretations of a taxing provision the one which is favourable to the assessee should be preferred. Therefore the case relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is of no help to the Revenue Department. Moreover, the controversy involved in the present case has now been settled by the Hon rsquo ble apex Court in the aforesaid referred to case of Dhariya Construction Co. (supra). We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and the various judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, are of the confirmed view that the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in setting aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer by reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act solely on the basis of the DVO rsquo s report. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in these appeals of the Department. 7. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 680
Income escaping assessment, Exemption of income from property held under ... ... ... ... ..... ing at the conclusion arrived at by the officer recording the reasons. 10. In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the very initiation of reassessment proceedings, on the facts of this case and on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, is bad in law. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. As we have quashed the reassessment proceeding itself, we see no need to deal with ground No. 3 raised by the assessee to the effect that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming and the Assessing Officer erred in holding that the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act were violated in respect of investment made in 11.5 per cent Government of India Bonds, 2005 . That grievance is rendered academic and does not call for any adjudication at this stage. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above.
-
2010 (5) TMI 679
Firm - Assessed as such ... ... ... ... ..... bmissions filed by the learned Departmental Representative, we are of the considered opinion that this Bench has adjudicated the issue in dispute on 22-7-2009 in the case of the Reshi Construction Co. (supra) in which the assessment was also completed under section 144 of the Act and the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest and salary to the assessee since the books of account have not been produced before him but later on the assessee produced the same and this Bench had allowed the deduction of interest and salary to the assessee. Keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in the case of the Reshi Construction Co. (supra) and respectfully following the same, the addition in dispute is deleted by allowing the ground No. 2. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
............
|
