|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 320 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1188
... ...
... ... ..... dv., Mr. Rahul Kaushik,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 1187
Exemption u/s 80G - Renewal of recognition u/s 80G denied on the ground that the assessee had violated the conditions as laid down in s.80G(5)(ii) and (iii) - assessee trust is doing charitable work without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed or religion - HELD THAT:- The assessee trust’s hospital had treated 8,51,127 patients of non-Christian community out of 9,00,406 total patients received treatments which works out to 94.5%. Likewise, for the F.Y.2009-10, the total number of patients received various treatments from its hospital were 9,07,641, out of which, 8,50,146 patients were not belonging to the Christian community. This very fact belies the finding of the Ld. DIT(E) that the assessee-trust had served only its community and was being run for the benefit of Catholics.
When the assessee-trust was established in sixties the very object must have been for the benefit of Catholics, however, in practice the other community patients who have out-numbered the Christian community indeed received treatments from its hospital cannot be looked in isolation. Even on a glimpse of statistics provided, we find that out of the total number of 685 students admitted in its Medical College, 195 students were from Hindu community, 24 from Muslim and the remaining were from various sects of Christian community. Likewise, the number of staffs employed in its various institutions such as Research Institute, Medical College, Hospital etc., we find that a fair number of staffs were from other communities too.
This precisely contradicts the finding given by the Ld. DIT (E) in his impugned order that 80% of the total number of students from Christian community and the position of non-teaching staff were around 90% from its community and so on so forth.
Assessee-trust has been serving the humanity in its noble profession – rendering timely treatment to the needy without discriminating the caste, creed, community etc.- one should approach its cause with a wider perception rather than trying to read between the lines.
Provisions of s.80G(5)(iii) cannot be applied to the instant case since the assessee trust’s beneficiaries being the society at large and NOT to be beneficiary of Catholics alone as alleged by the Ld. DIT(E). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1185
... ...
... ... ..... ly, there is no room for computation of short-term capital gains in the present case. 29. Regarding the protective computation of long term capital gains, we find that it was only a face saving computation made by the assessing authority while substantively treating the asset as stock-intrade. While treating the surplus as long term capital gains, the assessee has computed the long term capital gains in a rightful manner and Assessing Officer has not given any convincing reason to deviate from computation made by the assessee firm. 30. Therefore, we find that both the protective computations made by the assessing authority are not sustainable in law. 31. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the computation of long term capital gains returned by the assessee and complete the assessment accordingly. 32. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday the 28th day of July, 2010, at Bangalore.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1183
... ...
... ... ..... Account represented an unascertained liability so as to enhance the book profit in terms of provisions of Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not directing, that the amount of ₹ 29,60,828/- being the liability towards leave encashment due to the employees could not be deducted from the income computed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inspite of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earthmovers v. CIT, reported in 245-ITR-428-SC? 3. Whether in the circumstances of the case was not the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal right in not deducting an addition made of ₹ 2,83,70,822/- despite the fact that no such deduction was either claimed in the computation of income or was debited in the Profit and Loss Account? Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue accepts notice. In view of the aforesaid, no further notice need to be issued.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1180
... ...
... ... ..... as capital gain is not an appropriation of profit meant for uncertain purpose. This is an amount under obligation to get adjusted in case the assessee wants to get back the vessel or allows the vendor to retain possession of the vessels. Therefore, in our opinion, it may not be correct to designate the same as reserve at all. Further more, the said amount is not debited to profit and loss account. Therefore, both the conditions required for the purpose of adding back the said amount to the book profit is not satisfied. In view of this judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. (supra), in our opinion, even under Explanation 1(b ) to section 115JB the disputed amount of ₹ 15,35,10,501 cannot be added back to the book profit. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the Order of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the entire addition is deleted. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1175
... ...
... ... ..... nefit others rather than one’s self. The action which follows from charitable thinking is always directed as benefit to others. It is this direction of thought and efforts and not the result what is done in term of financially measurable gain which determines that it is charitable quoted from Sole Trustee Lok Shikshan Trust vs. CIT(101 ITR 234) (SC) . Since the main predominant object of the assessee is profit making, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order in denying registration u/s 12A/12AA of the Act to the assessee. Thus, on this issue, we affirm the stand taken by the ld. first appellate authority. Before part with, we record our appreciations to Shri P.M. Choudhari along with Shri Anil Kamal Garg, ld. Counsels for the assessee and Mr. Girish Dave, ld. CCIT, DR for properly assisting the Bench by their valuable, tempting and useful arguments. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1174
... ...
... ... ..... e are therefore inclined to agree with the contention of learned AR that non-utilization of the amount within the period of three years is to be seen for declining the claim of deduction only after expiry of three years and not in the relevant assessment year in which assessee has duly deposited the amount in the capital gains tax account before last date of filing the return. In the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this ground also back to the file of the AO for verifying all the relevant details with regard to investment in new residential plot as well as deposit in the bank account under capital gains tax scheme and its utilization thereafter if any within the statutory period as stipulated in the relevant provisions of Section 54 and for deciding the same as per law. We direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated hereinabove. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 23rd July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1173
... ...
... ... ..... 2003-04. We find the Tribunal vide ITA No.394/Mum/08 order dated 29-01-2010 has dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue. It has been held in the said decision that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition by following the orders of the ITAT in the earlier year. We find the Tribunal vide ITA No.2412/Mum/08 order dated 22-03-2010 for the asst. year 2004-05, following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the asst. year 2003-04, has dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue. Respectfully following the consistent view of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the orders of the Tribunal, this ground by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1172
... ...
... ... ..... isement expenses incurred was for the purpose “advertisement expenses” as professional services rendered by the payees were in the nature of direct payment for professional services was not clarified before the Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel also had no objection if the matter was restored to the file of the AO for consideration afresh to determine whether the provisions of Section 194J were applicable in the case of the assessee on the basis of confirmation of the payments made to the copy writers and artistes. In this view of the matter, therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue is restored to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in the light of the submissions now made before us for carrying out the verification whether the provisions of Section 194J are applicable in the light of the CBDT Circular relied upon by both parties before us. 14. In the light of foregoing, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1171
... ...
... ... ..... any to its subsidiary during the previous year relevant to AY2004-05, within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. And on this ground alone the impugned addition of ₹ 4,16,12,082, made in AY 2004-05, becomes unsustainable. We hold accordingly. 8. We like to make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the other reasons, given by the CIT(A) in his order, for deleting the above addition.” On perusal of the above noted conclusion, we find that each and every aspect of the matter has been considered and moreover, the ld. DR could not be able to point out any apparent mistake and as such, while considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, we do not find any valid ground to rectify the order. Therefore, we dismiss the application of the Department being devoid of any merits. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the Department gets dismissed. The order is pronounced soon after the conclusion of hearing on 30.07.10.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1168
... ...
... ... ..... an amounts were retained as such with those companies i.e. until the amount is converted into equity, so far no interest was received or agreed to be paid by the loanee companies. Since there is no accrual or receipt of interest, Tribunal cancelled the assessment of interest income. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the Tribunal because the loans were later treated as advance made for investments in equity i.e. for purchase of shares and so long as department has no case that interest accrued to the assessee, there is no scope for assessment. In view of the finding of facts rendered by the Tribunal based on which they rejected the department's case, we see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. In fact, the other questions raised by the department in their appeals are not seen considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, those questions do not arise from orders of the Tribunal. Consequently we dismiss all the three appeals filed by the department.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1165
... ...
... ... ..... aluers/surveyors and Chartered Consulting Engineers recognized by C.C.E, Nagpur and factory Inspector of Gujarat and Maharashtra. We find that these are new evidence and this was not confronted to Assessing Officer while asking remand report from Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we are of the views that this needs re-verification at the level of AO as argued by Ld. SR-DR. Ld. counsel for assessee fairly agreed that he has no objection in case the matter be set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for considering the fresh evidence and decide the issue. Accordingly, we set aside this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to consider the certificate of Chartered Consulting Engineers recognized by C.C.E, Nagpur and Factory Inspector of Gujarat and Maharashtra. This issue of the Revenue’s appeal is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this day of 23rd July,2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1164
... ...
... ... ..... fore, in our opinion, assessee’s claim for depreciation should not be restricted in the manner made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, disallowance of ₹ 1,17,00,000/-, 13 lakhs, 23,51,576/- and ₹ 5,73,824/- on account of depreciation claim stands cancelled. Ground Nos. 5 to 19 of the assessee stand allowed. 5. As for the decision of Delhi Bench in Nestle India Ltd.’s case (supra) relied on by the Ld. DR, it was regarding a claim of depreciation on UPS attached to a computer and has no relevance whatsoever on facts here. 6. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the disallowance of depreciation made. Such disallowance stands deleted.” 8. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the assessees concerned were eligible for depreciation on windmills including civil work and electrical fittings. The A.O. is directed to allow depreciation accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeals stand allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 09-07-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1162
... ...
... ... ..... e addition in relation to interest expenditure. However, before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer had pointed out that interest amounting to ₹ 42,87,359/- had not been paid to the Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank and as such was not allowable under section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 42,87,359/- since the assessee had not paid the amount and deleted addition to the extent of ₹ 1,69,12,024/-. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in relation to proposed question no.2 are merely by way of necessary corollary to the conclusion arrived at in relation to proposed question no.1 and as such do not give rise to a question of law as proposed or otherwise. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. In absence of any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1157
... ...
... ... ..... ch defines revenue recognition in respect of services rendered, the revenue is recognised when substantially all of the acts have been completed. Since in the instant case although the amount of ₹ 3,38,250 has been received on 31st March, 2004, but the fact remains that the ship has started sailing only 1st April, 2004. Since the assessee has already offered the amount of ₹ 3,38,250 as its receipt in the accounting period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, therefore, the addition of the same to the total receipt for the impugned assessment year under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, will amount to double addition which is not justified. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 3,38,250. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1151
... ...
... ... ..... f the assessee as revenue expenditure, this issue has also not been examined by either of the authorities. We, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee whether expenditure incurred on acquisition of mining rights is revenue expenditure or capital in nature.” Both sides agreed that issue may be restored to Assessing Officer. Since the CIT (A) has decided the issue on the basis of decision of the ITAT in ITA No.1013/Del/2008 for assessment year 2002-03, the ITAT had set aside the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the claim of the assessee, hence we also set aside this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for re-examination. 16. Ground Nos.8 & 9 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on the 23rd day of July 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1147
... ...
... ... ..... an amounts were retained as such with those companies i.e. until the amount is converted into equity, so far no interest was received or agreed to be paid by the loanee companies. Since there is no accrual or receipt of interest, Tribunal cancelled the assessment of interest income. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the Tribunal because the loans were later treated as advance made for investments in equity i.e. for purchase of shares and so long as department has no case that interest accrued to the assessee, there is no scope for assessment. In view of the finding of facts rendered by the Tribunal based on which they rejected the department's case, we see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. In fact, the other questions raised by the department in their appeals are not seen considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, those questions do not arise from orders of the Tribunal. Consequently we dismiss all the three appeals filed by the department.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... the new flat. If that is so, This was well within the period of one year before the date of sale or two years after such sale. As mentioned by CBDT in Circular No.667referred supra, cost of the plot cannot be excluded from the purchase price of the house property. It is also not disputed that the cost of the undivided share purchased by the assessee itself was not sufficient to justify claim under sections 54 and 54F of the Act. As held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.K.Kapoor (supra) exemption of capital gains could be allowed notwithstanding the fact that the construction of the new house had begun before the sale of the old house. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that the assessee was eligible for claiming exemption under sec. 54 and 54F of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed such claim and no interference is called for. 9. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09-07-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1137
... ...
... ... ..... d,Adv., Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv., Mr. Kunal Bahri,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides. We have examined the position. We find that the shareholders are genuine parties. They are not bogus and fictitious. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... lied upon but the same was not discussed or distinguished. Since this Coordinate Bench decision has a bearing on the issue the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and not considering the same would be considered as a mistake apparent from record on various principles on this issue. 5. As seen from the record the above said decision was placed before the Bench but inadvertently the same was not discussed or distinguished. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the assessee should be given an opportunity to place the arguments in this regard and the Miscellaneous Application is to be allowed by recalling the order dated 10.08.2010. It is also necessary to examine whether the above Coordinate Bench decision is applicable on the facts of the case. For these reasons the order is recalled and the Registry is directed to post the cases afresh for fresh consideration in the due course. 6. In the result, MA is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July 2010.
........
|
