|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 320 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1230
... ...
... ... ..... ice returnable on 27th July, 2010. By way of adinterim relief, the respondent is permitted to proceed further with the investigation and inquiry. However, final order shall not be passed without the permission of this Court. 3. Direct Service is permitted.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1229
... ...
... ... ..... terest income on FDRs and mutual funds arises out of the funds invested with non-members? Similar question was also involved in Income Tax Appeal (30) of 2003, The Commissioner of Income Tax-11 another Vs. M/s Noida Golf Course Society. This Court has dismissed the appeal on 26.5.2010. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1228
... ...
... ... ..... s cancellation agreement was filed along with the application u/s 154 but it relates to the nature of transactions. It has been repeatedly held by the apex court that justice should not only be done it should seem to have been done and minor technicalities should not come in the way. Therefore, in order to impart justice to the parties the entire transactions should be examined in the light of this cancellation deed which is filed along with the rectification application. We therefore, of the view that the A.O. ought to have allowed the rectification application and to adjudicate the issue in the light of cancellation deed filed before the A.O. We accordingly, set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to admit the cancellation deed and to re-examine the entire issue in the light of these documents. Accordingly, this appeal is stand disposed off. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 19.7.2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1226
... ...
... ... ..... ctly attributable to the Indian PE i.e. rendered to a project or client in India. In effect thus, entire profits relating to services rendered by the assessee, whether rendered in India or outside India, in respect of Indian projects is taxable in India. That is precisely what the Assessing Officer had done. The grievance of the Assessing Officer is indeed justified and we uphold the same. We, therefore, vacate the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard. 149. In this view of the matter, second ground of appeal of the Assessing Officer is thus allowed. Outcome of Assessing Officer s appeal 150. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Summary of outcome of cross appeals 151. To sum up, the appeals filed by the assessee as also by the Assessing Officer are partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 16 th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... empted must have been applied in the year in question and not earlier. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. 8. Exclusion of income from total income under Section 11 of the Act is to the extent of its application for charitable purposes. Adjustment against excess expenditure of an earlier year is also application of income under the said provision. In CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 1987 164 ITR 439 , it was held that it was not necessary that the income should be applied in the year in which it has arisen. Excess expenditure already incurred could also be adjusted against the income of the following year. Requirement of Section 11 of the Act was only to apply the income which could also cover adjustment of the income for the expenditure for charitable purposes. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the said judgment. No contrary view has been shown. 9. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... d hoc addition is unjustified. Addition was accordingly deleted. 3. The learned DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, assessee sought adjournment which is rejected separately. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. 4. On consideration of the above facts and submissions of the learned DR, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The AO has not brought any material on record to show as to which of the bills/vouchers of the expenditure has not been produced before him. Even, no quantum of amount is specified as to how which expenditure was not supported by any bills/vouchers. The AO has also not pointed out as to which of the expenditure was inadmissible in nature. It, therefore, appears that the AO has made ad hoc addition of 15% out of the total expenditure. The learned CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition. 5. As a result, departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9-07-2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... s. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd., 312 ITR 254 and judgment of this Court in Skycell Communications Ltd. and Anr. vs. DCIT and Ors., 251 ITR 53 which has been followed in appeal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd., I.T.A. No. 1120/2007. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. It could not be disputed that the question covered there is a pure question of fact. No question of law has arisen. Dismissed.? In view of the aforesaid order, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1217
... ...
... ... ..... red the facts of the case and submissions made before us. It is clear that a fiction created u/s 50C is applicable only for the purpose of computation of capital gains in the case of transferor. This fiction is not applicable to the case of a buyer in this year. The issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra). Following this decision, it is held that the provisions contained in sections 69 and 69B cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee unless specific evidence of non-disclosure of any part of the investment is brought on record. Such an evidence does not exist in this case. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the ld. CIT(A) in this matter. Relying on the decision in the case of Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd., it is held that no amount could be added to the income of the assessee u/s 69 or 69B. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 9th July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1215
... ...
... ... ..... AO. 7. We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the relevant material available on record. As the facts emerge, AO in his order has merely referred to excessiveness of expenditure; self made vouchers and without assigning any reasons ad hoc disallowances have been made, which in A.Y. 2003- 04 have been upheld by CIT(A) and in A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 have been partly confirmed. In our view, if the books of assessee are properly maintained and produced before AO, the disallowance shall proceed on items of expenditure, which are not proved by the assessee. Ad hoc disallowance in every year without assigning any reasons is not justifiable. In view thereof, we are inclined to delete the ad hoc disallowance as upheld by CIT(A). Assessee’s grounds in this behalf are allowed. 8. Charging of interest u/s 234(b) & (c) is consequential in nature. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed on above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 30-7-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... w, in this case also the payment made is for business consideration and cannot be considered to be illegal in nature and have been incurred in the ordinary course of business in order to ensure that the work is completed on time. Therefore, the said amount has to be allowed as deduction by way of "business expenditure". Therefore said decision squarely applies to the present case also and accordingly, we answer the substantial questions against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the considered view that the assessee's case is quite identical to the case decided by the Hon'ble High Court supra. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has also arrived at the same conclusion. Therefore we do not have any hesitation to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1213
... ...
... ... ..... the seller has sold the gold or diamond at higher rate to the purchaser and has shown a lesser price. In the case of these shares there is some limitations also hence argument advanced by the learned Sr. counsel supports that assessee has not paid more price for acquiring those shares than declared in the books of accounts. The learned CIT(A) has only expressed a doubt regarding the purchase price shown by the assessee at the same time accepted valuation report furnished by the assessee which was furnish before him for the firsty time. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the addition made u/s.69B and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, allow the ground of the assessee on this issue and delete the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) and at the same time dismiss the ground taken by the Revenue. 9. In the result, of the assessee’s appeal is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this day of 30th, July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... pplying the formula under subsection (3) of Section 80HHC, the expression profits of the business would need to be substituted by book profits. Our conclusion is that the acceptance of the submission would amount to rewriting a legislative provision which would not be permissible to the Court. 31. In the circumstances, while allowing the appeal, we answer the question of law by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount to be reduced under clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB in respect of the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed with reference to the net profits in the profit and loss account and not according to the profits of the business computed under the head of profits and gains of business or profession. The question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the aforesaid terms. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1210
... ...
... ... ..... , Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1206
... ...
... ... ..... ted the said addition observing that the liability to pay 20% of disputed interest to SEBI has been utilized during FY 2004-05 in view of SEBI Interest Liability Regularization Scheme, 2004. The CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Mills Co. Vs. CIT 3 (1980) Taxman 52 (SC) wherein it was held that interest payable on cess partakes the character of cess itself and is thus allowable on the basis of actual payment u/s 43B. 25. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) wherein he has rightly been deleted the addition by following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahalaxmi Mills co. (supra). Therefore, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue. 26. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1202
... ...
... ... ..... of appeal is allowed subject to final decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.” 9. We find that on the same issue on the identical facts the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) had given the same finding as quoted above in the Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004- 05. The Revenue in those years had accepted the finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and had not filed appeal before the Tribunal against the finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The Learned Departmental Representative could not point out any distinguishing features in the above year under appeal. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 9th day of July-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1201
... ...
... ... ..... learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee would be in a position to furnish necessary details, if any opportunity is given to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative also did not object to the proposal for providing another opportunity. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter of claim of current repairs of ₹ 20,69,866/- to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to afford an opportunity to the assessee to explain its case and decide the issue in accordance with the law. 9. In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2002-03, 2003- 04 & 2006-07 are dismissed. The Appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2001-02, 2004-05 & 2005-06 and the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 are treated as partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is treated as allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 28th July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1199
... ...
... ... ..... sult, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a comprehensive fresh representation including documents in support of their claim for exemption within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondent corporation shall fix a date for inspection of the premises and after inspection, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and then decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of which the personal hearing is afforded to the petitioner. The respondent while deciding the matter will also take note of the law laid down by this Court in the Judgment reported in 1993 (2) LW 100, referred supra. 11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1196
... ...
... ... ..... der Chaudhary,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed on the facts of this case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1192
... ...
... ... ..... debt as a bad debt or irrecoverable in the books of account i.e., conclusive proof of the said debt being a bad debt. The question of the Department going into the legality or correctness of the declaration was impermissible even though after such declaration the Assessee claimed deduction. Subsequently, the Assessee is not prevented from recovering the said amount. In this case, the amount so recovered is offered to tax and tax has been paid and therefore, seen from any angle, the interest of the revenue is in no way affected. It is in that context, the Tribunal keeping in mind the statutory provisions and the said legal position has rightly set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the first appellate authority and upheld the claim of deduction. 10. In that view of the matter, the substantial questions of law framed are answered against the revenue and in favour of the Assessee. We do not see any merit in this appeal and accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1190
... ...
... ... ..... power to impose tax on the said income. 6.3 Considering the above, we find that the genuineness/correctness of the assessee’s claim has not been doubted by the revenue and the only grievance is that the same has not been filed by way of original return or revised return. The Assessing Officer has not allowed the claim only on this ground and that the Auditors Certificate was not signed by the same auditor. A genuine claim of the assessee has to be allowed and the another argument for denial by the Assessing Officer that From 10-B has not been signed by the same auditor, is devoid of merits. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we do not find any merit in this grievance. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and hence we affirm the same. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2010 upon conclusion of the hearing.
........
|
