|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 320 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1130 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessing officer had not provided copy of reasons prior to passing of the order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it will be fair to set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer with the directions to provide copy of the reasons for reopening of assessment. The assessee will be entitled to raise objections on receipt of the reasons from the assessing officer. The assessing officer will be bound to dispose of the objections by passing a speaking order. The assessing officer is directed accordingly. 9. Since we have set aside the issue to the file of the assessing officer on assumption of jurisdiction, the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) is also set aside with the directions to be decided de novo after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on 23rd July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1129 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ut by the assessee has shown the N.P. 5.16 . The A.O. has not pointed out any specific expenditure which can be disallowed. The CIT(A) although reduced the adhoc disallowance to ₹ 5,00,000/-but the assessee has not come in appeal. The ld. A.R. agreed before us that no appeal was filed by the assessee. It is only Revenue who has come in appeal in respect of the relief given by the CIT(A). We are, therefore, of the view that no disallowance can be made on adhoc basis without pointing out that the expenses incurred by the assessee are not for the purpose of business or is a personal expense or a capital expenditure and no such finding was brought on record and even this is not the case of the Revenue. Under these facts and circumstances, in our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 8. In the result, appeal field by the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.07.2010).
-
2010 (7) TMI 1126 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n (1) thereof, which requires the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer a case from one Assessing Officer to another after recording his reasons for doing so. A perusal of the impugned order dated 1st October 2009 made under sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act indicates that the same does not reflect any reasons for transferring the cases from the Assessing Officer mentioned in column 4 of the order to the Assessing Officer mentioned in column 5 thereof. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the impugned order made under sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act is not in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof and as such, cannot be sustained. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 1st October 2009 made under section sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1125 - ITAT CHENNAI
Application under Rule 27 - reopening of the assessment - opening stock of TTK Biomed Ltd.- HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Balance Sheet and Schedule 7 thereto of TTK Biomed Ltd. as on 30.6.1999 clearly shows that the closing balance shown is as on 30.6.1999 at ₹ 6,91,58,608/-. Thus the opening stock as on 1.7.1999 would be at ₹ 6,91,58,608/-. In the circumstances we are of the view that the assessee has adopted the opening stock of TTK Biomed Ltd. as on 1.7.1999 at ₹ 6,91,58,608/- and such figure is not the opening stock as on 1.4.1999. Therefore the issue as noted in the assessment order being the first issue is held against the Revenue. Consequently, Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed.
excess grant of depreciation - HELD THAT:- From the facts, it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of the excess grant of depreciation on the plant and machinery transferred by TTK Biomed Ltd to the assessee company. We may also mention here that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition made on this count and the Revenue has not preferred any ground against such deletion.
subsidy received by the assessee - HELD THAT:- From the facts as the subsidy received are not the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year the finding of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the same is found to be correct and also the same does not result in escapement of income which gives room for reopening. We may also mention here that the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting this addition has also been accepted by the Revenue insofar as no ground has been raised against such deletion.
In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication and dismissed on merits. Consequently the reopening of the assessment is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1123 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is Court is in full agreement with the law cited by the Assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax v. V.T. Rajendran 2007 288 ITR 312 (Mad) and holds that re-assessment order cannot be passed purely on the basis of DVO’s report. In our view, in the present case the DVO’s report was called after accepting the books of account submitted by the Assessee. Not only the Assessing Officer has accepted the books of account but thereafter the reassessment order has been passed purely on the basis of DVO’s report, which in our view is not proper. In our view, having accepted the books of account it did not lie with the Assessing Officer to call for a report from the DVO. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the contention advanced by the appellants i.e. the Revenue. This Court also finds no anomaly in the order of the Tribunal dated 31.7.2008, which is hereby upheld. The present Income Tax Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1121 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, no addition is warranted. Thus, on this issue also, the assessee succeeds.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that questions (i) to (iii) are covered against the revenue by order passed by this Court dated 5.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.151 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Market Committee, Narwana. Accordingly, the said questions cannot be held to be substantial questions of law. 5. As regards questions (iv) and (v), findings of the Tribunal clearly show that the assessee was following cash system of accounting. Even the order of assessment records that cash system of accounting was followed by the assessee. In such a situation, only on the basis of accrual of interest income, addition could not be made to the income of the assessee. The findings of the Tribunal are, thus, not erroneous in any manner. Questions (iv) and (v) cannot be held to be substantial questions of law. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1117 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the transaction should have been verified and shown that it was in fact money of the assessee and not that of Mrs. Trivedi. Once having accepted the genuineness of the transaction, the explanation cannot be treated as unsatisfactory unless it is investigated and found to be false. If the events narrated in the explanation could have taken place then without contradicting the facts stated in the explanation, it cannot be rejected. If the law provides that penalty can be levied as explanation is not satisfactory then satisfaction of the AO on the explanation furnished by the assessee should be objective and not merely subjective rejecting out-rightly, even though there is no material to contradict the facts stated in the explanation. I accordingly hold under the circumstances the explanation furnished by the assessee as satisfactory and accordingly cancel the penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 7/7/2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1116 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that the relationship between the jobbers and the assessee company is that of cosharer of profit/loss and therefore the provisions of sec. 194C are not attracted. He has not given any independent finding in this case. Further, neither the ld. D.R. nor the ld. counsel could throw any light as to whether the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Prakash K. Shah Shares & Securities P. Ltd. (supra) has been accepted by the Revenue or the Revenue has filed any appeal before the Tribunal and, if so, the outcome of the same. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore this matter to the file of AO with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 09th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1114 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the Tribunal to demonstrate that in Assessment Year 2001-02 earlier an order was passed in assessee’s own case bearing ITA No.870/Ahd/2003 dated 09/03/2007, through which the matter was restored back to the stage of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue whether the donations could be held as income of the assessee’s trust or eligible for deduction. In the second round, again the matter had reached upto the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2001-02 wherein the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed in ITA No.1806/Ahd/2009 vide order dated 04/09/2009 by Respected Co-ordinate “B” Bench and held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. In the light of above background, hardly any scope has left for our interference at this stage, therefore, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence, dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30/ 07 /2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1113 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) . If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the A.O. for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) . That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. Therefore, he requested to uphold the order of the CIT(A). 7. After hearing the rival submissions and careful perusal of the materials available on record and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , we are of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, we confirm the same and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1112 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... anding demand is ₹ 11,20,023/- against which the present stay petition has been filed by the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee contends the financial position of the assessee is not congenial to enable the assessee to pay the balance outstanding demand. He also contends that he has a strong prima facie case and reasonable hope to succeed in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the request of the assessee. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the submissions of the assessee such as the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the assessee, the financial stringency, the interest of the revenue and the balance of convenience, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where stay should be granted. We, accordingly, grant stay till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. In the result, stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed This Order Is Pronounced in Open Court On Dt. 23.7.2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1110 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the file of AO to re-examine the issue after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.” 2.3 The finding of the Tribunal in respect of ground no. 3 reads as under - “Ground nos. 2 & 3 relate to disallowance of expenses out of car running, petrol expenses, depreciation on car and telephone expenses. The benches of the ITAT in the country are taking consistent view that in case of company no personal user is involved. Latest decision is reported in 76 ITD 32. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) has also taken similar view. Therefore, in view of the precedence, I allow these grounds by holding that no disallowance can be made in the hands of the company on account of personal use.” 3. Concurring with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, all these grounds are dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1109 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... egation that explanation furnished by the assessee is not bona fide. For invoking explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) all the three ingredients are to be cumulatively and simultaneously satisfied as held by the Tribunal in ITAT, Lucknow Bench in Star International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 88 (Lucknow) and in the present case none of the ingredients is satisfied, the penalty could not be levied even within the meaning of explanation. The three ingredients are as under - (1) The assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate; (2) The fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide; and (3) All the facts relating to the same and material facts to the computation of total income then disclosed by him. Accordingly, I hold that penalty is neither leviable under the main provision nor under explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c). 5. In the result, I cancel the penalty and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. Order was pronounced in open Court on 8/7/2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1105 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ave the benefit of the enquiries and wisdom of the lower authorities. This being so and keeping in view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee by the AO, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the file of the AO and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities on this account and send back the entire matter to the file of the AO , who shall decide the same afresh and according to law after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to prove his case. It is made clear that if the assessee remains recalcitrant the AO shall be at liberty to draw adverse inference as he deem fit and decide the issues accordingly. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8 In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1102 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act. I find that the lower authorities has failed to appreciate the fact that depreciation was a non cash expenditure or allowance to the assessee in determining net income of ₹ 2,12,696/-. Thus the income of the assessee before depreciation was ₹ 4,22,350/- ( ₹ 2,12,696 ₹ 2,09,654 ) and after depreciation allowance of ₹ 2,09,654/- the net income of the assessee was ₹ 2,12,696/-. In other words the assessee by having income of ₹ 2,12,696/- had cash earning of ₹ 4,22,350/-. Thus in my considered opinion the maximum amount which could be added in the instant case comes to ₹ 2,309/- ( ₹ 4,24,659 - ₹ 4,22,350 ) only. I therefore modify the orders of the lower authorities and sutain addition of ₹ 2,309/- and delete the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,09,654/-. 8. Thus, the appeal of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 23rd day July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1101 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ners agreed net profit rate of 8 per cent subject to not allowing any other deduction under wrong notion. Perhaps he was of the view that administrative expenses such as salary expenses, raw material expenses, electricity expenses, labour expenses etc. may not be allowed. However, depreciation, interest and salary to partners which are otherwise allowable and moreover the partner has not specifically mentioned that these expenses will not be claimed. It seems that there is a bona fide mistake in not mentioning specifically these expenses because they are not administrative expenses but are allowable otherwise. For these reasons, we can say that learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow these expenses separately. Accordingly we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow deduction of depreciation, interest and salary to partners, therefore, we confirm the order of learned CIT(A). 16. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... h, 2003 at page 637 wherein following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smruti Trading Co. 70 TTJ (Mum.) 114, it was held that salary paid to the partner who was partner in his representative capacity as karta of HUF cannot be considered to be payment to HUF but to karta as an individual. The karta of HUF is a working partner and, therefore, the remuneration paid to him is allowable. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the revenue authorities were not justified in disavowing the claim of the assessee. The two partners though they were representatives of their respective HUFs were partners in their individual capacity and, therefore, the remuneration paid to them would be an allowable deduction. We direct accordingly." Respectfully following the above orders, we allow the claim of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 30/7/2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1099 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ber that each entity is an assessee separate and the relationship does not affect the decision. Further the forfeiture has not been claimed to be bogus nor has it been shown to be a fraud or a colourable device. o p /o p The loss of money in the form of partly paid up shares remains an undisputed fact in the hands of the assessees. In the circumstances we are of the view that the principles laid own in the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., referred to supra, squarely apply to the facts of the appellants’ case. Consequently the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands reversed and the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the claim of the assessees in respect of the forfeiture of the partly paid up shares of M/s. KPR Sugar Mills P.Ltd. as short term capital loss. In the circumstances the appeals of the assessees are allowed. o p /o p 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 30-07-2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (7) TMI 1097 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... having been granted to the petitioner on the question of delay, the impugned order of Commissioner holding that the application had been filed after a delay of six years, suffers from the vice of principles of natural justice and as such, cannot be sustained. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2009 (Annexure-C) made by respondent Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The revision application bearing File No. CITII/ Jud/Tech/264/02/2009-10 is restored to the file of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. If the Commissioner is of the view that the application under section 264 of the Act is barred on the ground of delay, the Commissioner shall decide the same as a preliminary issue after putting the petitioner to notice and giving it an opportunity of hearing. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... tmental Representative could not point out any distinguishing features in the above quoted order of the Tribunal. He also could not show that the order of the Tribunal passed in the Assessment Year 2006-07 was reversed in appeal by the higher forum. As the facts and issue involved in the present year of appeal are identical to the facts and issue involved in the Assessment Year 2003-04, respectfully following the above quoted order of the Tribunal we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Learned Assessing Officer to allow deduction of ₹ 5,13,901 claimed on account of filtration expenses by the assessee. However, while doing so the Learned Assessing Officer shall withdraw the depreciation of ₹ 1,28,475/- allowed to the assessee. Thus this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 9th day of July, 2010.
........
|
