|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 236 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 901 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... issions made the same submissions as were made in assessment year 2002-03 that the investment in shares has come down to ₹ 1.58 Crores as against own funds of ₹ 6.84 Crores. It was also submitted that investments in shares have been made in the earlier years. 16. 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 ITA No.2407/Ahd/2005. The learned CIT(A) has followed the order of the learned CIT(A) for assessment year 2002-03 and no independent finding is given. We, therefore, following the order of the assessment year 2002- 03 in ITA No.2407/Ahd/2005, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire disallowance of the interest. 17. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the departmental appeal is dismissed. 18. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on 07-05-2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 898 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... h credit, is squarely applicable. Here, the assessee’s explanation that the loan has been obtained from Shri Dinesh Goyal has been found to be not at all satisfactory inasmuch as he has been found to be a man of no means or source of income. He has stated to have given the loan by receiving gifts as he was in “need of” gifts without any corroborative material. His bank account shows a very meager balance. There is deposit of ₹ 2,00,000/- by demand draft and there is immediate issue of cheques to the assessee. Hence, clearly the assessee has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it by the provision of section 68, as has been expounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohanakala (supra). 9. In the background of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.5.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 897 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... raft provider. The assessee also contended that in view of the large volume of the business, it was also not practically possible to maintain full record of addresses and other details of the parties. In our considered opinion, such explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted in view of the specific provision of law contained in section 68 of the Act. In our considered opinion, when the assessee claims to have received cheque or draft on credit i.e. cash is not immediately given to the cheque or draft provider then the law requires the assessee to prove the nature and source of such credit by establishing identity and genuineness of the transaction. In the above circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 14th day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 896 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ion passed by the trust of the assessee and claim was allowed u/s 11(2) of the Act. 13. We find that the basis for disallowing the claim u/s 11(2) of the Act was non furnishing the copy of the resolution passed by the trust alongwith the Form No.10, in which the intention of the money accumulated and set apart is clarified. The assessee filed the copy of the said resolution before the CIT(A) and he in turn allowed the claim of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in conformity with the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee once the copy of resolution passed by the trustee had been furnished before the CIT(A). The learned DR for the Revenue failed to bring on record any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, upholding the order of the CIT(A), we dismiss the ground No.(iii) raised by the Revenue. 14. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 25th day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 894 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e basis of material produced before us in the case of this assessee, there is no good reason to come to the conclusion that the income from sale revenues of advertising time does not belong to the assessee. We leave it at that. 9. For the reasons set out above, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer was not quite justified in taxing the income from advertising time sales in India could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. He ought to have taxed the same 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. 11. 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 891 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT vs. Ajain Singh & Co. 253 ITR 630, wherein it is held that mere disallowance of expenditure will not per se amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. At para 4 page 3 of his order, the first appellate authority rightly held as follows “ Once the explanation of the assessee is not considered false and explanation has been given, the penalty can only be levied if the explanation is not bonafide and full details for the computation of income has not been given by the appellant. It may be noted that Rajasthan High Court decision in 251 ITR 373 has enunciated the principle of bonafide, wherein it has been held that there is presumption that explanation given is bonafide unless proved to be otherwise.” We uphold this finding of the first appellate authority. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 21st day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 890 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Block assessment - undisclosed income - proceedings u/s 158BD - search u/s 132 carried out in the business premises of M/s. Ohm Organizers, Surat on 29.10.1999 - books of accounts and documents seized - HELD THAT:- We admit the additional ground for adjudication in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]. Admittedly, in this case, search u/s 132 was carried out in the business premises of M/s. Ohm Organizers, Surat on 29.10.1999. Certain books of accounts and documents relating to the assessee were also seized. The AO found that certain investment in purchase of flats/ shops were made by the assessee and payment of on-money was made by him to the builder. Thereafter certain inquiries were carried out from the assessee u/s 133(6) by way of notice issued on u/s. 133(6). Further letters were also issued. However, notice u/s 158BD was issued to the assessee on 04.02.2005. In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the legality of action u/s 158BD.
Following the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Vimal Vadilal Shah and vice-versa and others [2010 (5) TMI 889 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], we hold that the block assessment famed in case of the above assessee is not legally valid and therefore is quashed for the reason that notices u/s.158BD was issued in this case long after completion of assessment in the case of person searched i.e. Ohm Developers.
Imposing penalty u/s. 158BFA - HELD THAT:- In quantum appeal filed by the assessee, the assessment framed by the AO is quashed, therefore penalty levied by the AO u/s 158BFA is also quashed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 889 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Validity of Block assessment proceedings - Undisclosed income of another person u/s 158BD - period of limitation - satisfaction u/s.158BD has not been recorded by AO of the person searched and notices u/s.158BD has been issued much after the closer of block assessment proceedings u/s.158BC of the person searched - HELD THAT:- As held in Saroj Nursing Home [2007 (9) TMI 325 - ITAT LUCKNOW-B] that proceedings u/s.158BD can be initiated on the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over person searched to tax undisclosed Income-tax pertaining to third person who is not subjected to search and books of accounts and in other documents were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such third person but proceedings initiated u/s.158BD of the Act after a period of six years cannot be regarded as valid.
In the case of Shri Vishnubhai R Barot [2009 (12) TMI 987 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] it was held, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari v [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT] and Manoj Agarwal. [2008 (7) TMI 446 - ITAT DELHI-A] held that without there being satisfaction recorded prior to completion of assessment of the person searched proceedings so initiated u/s.158BD will not be valid. In that case notice u/s.158BD was issued on 10-06-2004. But searched against Ohm Developers was carried out on 29-10-1999, therefore assessment u/s. 158BD thereof completed after 31-10-2001 could not be held valid.
Following these decisions, we hold that the block assessment famed in case of assessee are not legally valid and therefore are quashed for the reason that notices u/s.158BD were issued in these cases long after completion of assessment in the case of person searched i.e. Ohm Developers.
-
2010 (5) TMI 888 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t the AO has also discussed the issue. Since the payment of outstanding wages once has been accepted by the AO in next year; hence, in our opinion no addition can be made u/s 69C of the Act. Apart from that it is seen that it is also not case that the expenditure is bogus or non genuine and the AO has also not examined any of the labourers to support his case and made the high pitch addition. Merely because the labour charges are shown as outstanding that cannot be the ground to make the addition u/s 69C and there is no justification for the same. We have no other option but to delete the same and accordingly do so. 6 Regarding the remaining grounds, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that considering the smallness of the amount and as per the instructions of the assessee, he is not pressing the grounds and therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 7 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly. Order pronounced on the 21st, day of May 2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 887 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... plea of assessee regarding applicability of local rates to compute built up area. However, since we have accepted the legal contentions raised by the assessee in this regard, hence, we find no reason not to grant a deduction thereon u/s 80IB(10). Accordingly, we accept this ground of the cross objection filed by the assessee and direct the A.O. to grant deduction u/s 80IB as claimed by the assessee. 20. In the result, the cross objection stands allowed. 21. To sum up, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross objection is allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2010.” No contrary decision was brought to our notice, therefore, keeping in view the submission/admission of the respective parties that the issue is covered by the aforesaid decision, consequently, respectfully following the same, these appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Finally, appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 11th May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 886 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... erefore to tax dividend only in the hands of the shareholder.” “6.Here it is noticed that the assessee is not the shareholder in M/s Atma Ram Constructions. It is also noticed that the assessee does not have any substantial interest in M/s Atma Ram Construction Pvt. Ltd. In the circumstances, the addition of the deemed dividend in relation to the transaction of the assessee with M/s Atma Ram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) stands deleted. Consequently, ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeals for both the assessment year stands allowed.” 2.2 As a co-ordinate bench has already taken a view on these grounds and such view has not been reversed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we think it fit to follow the earlier order of the Tribunal for disposing of this appeal. Consequently, both the grounds are dismissed. 3. In result, the appeal is dismissed. 4. This order was pronounced in open court on 06.05.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f share application money. Since the confirmation letters, copies of Income-tax returns, Pan Number and certificate of the incorporation of the companies were placed on record by the assessee, the identities of the share applicants had been established. Moreover, the payments had been received through normal banking channels and there was nothing to doubt the creditworthiness of the said applicants. Thus, on facts, both the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have held the said amount to be in the nature of the share application money. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 884 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hree share applicants were borne out by the fact that all the three applicants were private limited companies and were regular income-tax assesses. They had submitted affidavits of their Directors, certificates of confirmation, their Bank Statements, copies of their balance sheets as well as copies of Income-tax returns for the assessment year 2000-2001. Other details such as Pan Number etc. were also clearly indicated. In view of the said information and particulars which were available on record, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd 216 CTR 195 and thereafter deleted the said addition. In doing so, it upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). No infirmity in the said decision has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, we find that no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this court. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 883 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... Act and Circular No. 4 of 2002 for the entities whose income is exempt u/s. 10. Section 194A speaks about deduction of tax whereas section 197A(1B) of the Act speaks about non-application of the section where the amount of any income is of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year where such income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. In the present appeal, since the income of the University is exempt, therefore, there is no question of deduction of tax at source and also when proceedings initiated u/s 148 were dropped, we find no infirmity in the stand of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is upheld. Finally, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of hearing on 25th May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 881 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... entire cost was adjusted against ex-gratia received from the insurance company and waiver granted by the financiers. The ld. CIT(A) further concluded that in any case for the year ended 31.3.2003, the assessee did not debit any claim nor received any insurance claim nor was any claim for damage debited to the profit and loss account, the claim having been settled in the subsequent financial year. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The ld. DR appearing before us did not refer us to any material , controverting these findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances and in the absence of any material before us for taking a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Thus, ground no. 1 in the appeal is dismissed 7. Ground nos. 2 & 3 being general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication and are, therefore, dismissed. 8 In the result , appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 24 -05-2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 880 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... absence of any material to indicate that they were profits of the firm, it could not be assessed in the hands of the firm”. 9. In view of the said decisions, it is settled position of law that in case the partners contribute to the capital of the firm, no addition can be made in the hands of the firm. The addition, if any, can be made only in the hands of the partner. The burden is on the partner to explain the source of the investment. We, accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Allahabad High Court, hold that the A.O. was not correct in law in making the addition in the hands of the firm. If any addition has to be made, that that can be made only in the hands of the partners. The A.O. is free to take action in the hands of individual partners who has contributed the capital. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal field by the Revenue. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2010).
-
2010 (5) TMI 879 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ed the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years which were not set off that too after verification of record of earlier years. Section 72 provides for carry forward of losses when such losses are not set off against the income under any other head. The unabsorbed losses must enter the assessment of every following year for ascertaining whether they could be set off against the profits and gains of any business, profession or vocation. It is only when it is found in each year that they could not be absorbed then they are allowed to be carried forward. Loss can be set off against income from any business. Even otherwise, the ITO is supposed to allow set off even if it is not claimed and otherwise allowable, consequently, there is no infirmity in the direction of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). o p /o p Finally, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in open Court on 28th May, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (5) TMI 878 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sed by the Assessing Officer and the book results were accepted in the order passed u/s 143(3). However, at the same time, since the assessee did not produce the full details and abstained from appearing before the Assessing Officer despite specific instruction given by the Assessing Officer that non appearance may attract ex-parte assessment, therefore, the book results simply cannot be accepted. 12. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the fact that the turnover during assessment year 2005-06 is 10.51 cores as against 6.38 crores during assessment year 2007-08 where the accounts of the assessee are accepted with the GP rate of 11.32 and net profit rate of 1.14 , we are of the considered opinion that adoption of GP rate of 8 for the assessment year 2005-06 will meet the ends of justice. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 876 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n nature hence not seriously contested by the ld. counsel for the assessee, we hereby follow the past history of the case and affirm the view taken by the Revenue Authorities. This is not the case of a Corporate Body but an assessment of an individual, hence, the use of vehicle or telephone for personal purposes should not altogeher be overruled specially when a taxpayer is not in a position to substantiate that wholly and exclusively it was incurred for the purpose of business and no part of it was ever spent for personal purpose. In a situation like this, the Revenue Department has left with no option but to make an adhoc disallowance as it was done in the present case. We hereby affirm the addition in the absence of any contrary evidence being provided by the assessee in his support. Grounds are dismissed. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 21st May, /2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 875 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ent. We find that assessee has been following regular system of accountings since last so many years and such method was based on accepted principles of accounting, therefore, there was no justification for rejecting such method for valuation of the stock. Therefore, we are of the view that CIT(A) is justified in his action and our interference is not required”. 5. Admittedly, the ld. counsel of the assessee stated before us at the time of hearing that the assessee is engaged in the business of dyeing and printing of fabrics on job work basis. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision dated 24.03.2010 of ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Ahmedabad (Camp at Surat) in ITA No. 1061 & 1358/AHD/2007 for the assessment year 2003- 04 (supra), we delete the addition of ₹ 9,03,871/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of closing work-in-progress. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 28.05.2010.
........
|
