|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 385 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1208
... ...
... ... ..... e term ‘own’ for the purpose of section 32 and when a similar term is available in the provisions of section 54 the meaning would have to be given to the term “own” in section 54F. If this is applied, then it would be the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Rasiklal N. Satra which would have to be applied and as the assessee herein is only a part owner of the two residential properties, one being the 1/4th owner with his other and the another being ½ owner with his sister, the assessee cannot be held to be owning a residential house as required for the purpose of the benefit u/s 54F. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s. 54F is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 7. The order was pronounced in the court on 12/08/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1206
... ...
... ... ..... sions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act wherein undue benefit is endured on the persons specified under Section 13(1) of the Act and also such activities of the Trust are not incidental objects of the Trust and hence has not complied with the requirements of Section 11(4) of the Act. 2. As regards question (b) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that this question does not arise out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence, question (b) cannot be entertained. 3. As regards question (a) is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has followed its decision in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 198586, 199192 and 200102. There is nothing on record to show that the Revenue has filed appeals in those assessment years. Nothing is brought to our notice as to how the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in those assessment years is contrary to law. 4. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1203
... ...
... ... ..... case of Star Cruise (India) Travel Services Private Limited. Following the same, he accepted the assessee’s contention. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Tribunal in the case of Star Cruise (India) Travel Services Private Limited heard the departmental appeal in ITA No.3941/Mum/2010. Vide order dated 22.07.2011 the appeal of the Revenue on similar question has been dismissed. In assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-2006, the Tribunal considered the similar issue and vide its order dated 23.12.2010 in ITA No.6112/Mum/2008 dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Copies of both the orders have been placed on record. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the appeal under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar to those already considered and decided by the Tribunal. Respectfully following the precedents we uphold the impugned order. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1202
... ...
... ... ..... he apex Court as (1983) 14 ITR (St) 67. 6. Learned standing counsel for the Department could not place any decision contrary to the above. Only submission which he could make is that in view of the amendment in law, the view of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand. Obviously, the said amendment was not available during the relevant assessment year and the said amendment was not retrospective in nature. 7. In view of the above, there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The question of law is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” Considering the pleadings of both sides and the ratio laid down in above decisions of Hon'ble Courts, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and hold that he was justified in deleting the addition for both the years under appeal. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1201
Excess amount realized on the investment in shares made through Kotak Mahindra Portfolio Management System - Nature of income - Held that:- Income declared by the assessee be assessed under the head 'Capital gain’ and not as 'Business income.’
-
2011 (8) TMI 1199
... ...
... ... ..... reted and sustained the order of CIT(Appeals) by noting that payment made to the State Government towards Water Front Royalty charges was inevitable for functioning of the assessee trust and that such a payment made towards objection of the trust as enshrined in Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 is towards fulfillment of objection. o p /o p This was rightly found to have been levied by virtue of statutory provisions for allowing the assessee to explore and exploit asset of the State for commercial purpose. And, so direct or indirect benefit also was found to have accrued to the Government due to such payment of royalty charges and thus, application under Section 13(3) was justifiably denied by the authorities. o p /o p 7. There are no other aspects pointed out by the Revenue for this Court to take any other stand than already taken, this Tax Appeal therefore, deserves no further consideration. There is no question of law to be decided and hence the same is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1198
... ...
... ... ..... of assessment order not filed in duplicate u/s 143(3) o p /o p 4. Verification is incomplete o p /o p 3. The appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 1.3.2011. The assessee till date has not removed the above mentioned defects. o p /o p 4. The appeal of the assessee fixed for hearing on 1.3.2011 was adjourned to 2.5.2011 at the request of the assessee and was further adjourned to 16.6.011 and 24.8.2011 at the request of the assessee. On the appointed date of hearing i.e. 24.8.2011, neither the counsel for the assessee appeared nor any application was moved for adjournment of the date of hearing. The assessee till date has not rectified the defects pointed out by the Registry in the Defect Notice. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal and as such the same is dismissed in limine. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 26th day of August, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1197
... ...
... ... ..... he A.O. on account of unexplained income ₹ 10,70,27,500/- on protective basis and ₹ 21,40,550/- on account of commission is deleted. o p /o p 4.1. I have carefully considered the submission of the ld. A.R. The A.O. has not disputed the fact that the books of accounts were produced before him from the extract of the cash book filed, it is apparent that sufficient funds were available with the assessee company for deposits made in the bank accounts, therefore ground no.5 taken by the appellant is allowed and addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- is deleted.” o p /o p 5.3. Since ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal and the ld. DR also could not bring any contrary decision/facts to that of the one decided by this Tribunal we find no infirmity in the orders of ld.CIT(A). Therefore we dismiss all the appeals of the Revenue. o p /o p 6. In the result the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.. o p /o p Order pronounced in the court on 26.08.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1196
... ...
... ... ..... sister concern of the assessee only for leasing it out to the assessee and the lease rentals exceeded the cost of acquisition of the machinery. The assessee has not produced any evidence to show that it was not in a position to make the down payment necessary for acquiring the machinery. In view of the same, we agree with the finding of the authorities below that the lease rentals cannot be allowed during the relevant assessment year as revenue expenditure. However, if these agreements are considered as a hire purchase agreements, then when the assessee makes the payment of all the instalments, then it shall be deemed to become the owner of the machinery and it shall be entitled to depreciation thereon. The fact that the sister concern has offered the lease rental as income cannot be the only factor to allow the lease rentals in the hands of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 5th of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1195
... ...
... ... ..... the character of compensation for acquisition of agricultural land and, thus, was not exempt under the Act. Once that was so, the tax at source had been rightly deducted by the payer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute that in view of receipt of interest element on enhanced compensation, the same being taxable in the year of receipt, the petitioners were required to file return as tax was payable on the said amount. In such a situation, the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax return and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source is found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners are entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source in accordance with law.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1194
... ...
... ... ..... ed from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable religious purpose in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of the income of the trust for charitable and religious purpose. The learned CIT(A) has followed this decision apart from others referred above. The order of the CIT(A) in three assessment years have been accepted by the revenue. In this year, the learned CIT(A) has simply based his decision on the finding given in earlier assessment years. Keeping in view the principle of consistency, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p 6. In result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1193
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The application of Rule 8D of the Rules is not automatic. When the assessee makes the claim regarding the quantum of expenses to be disallowed in terms of section 14A of the Act, it was incumbent on the part of the AO to consider the claim of the assessee. It is only when the AO is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee he can have recourse with the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The satisfaction that the claim made by the assessee regarding expenses incurred in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, is not correct, has to be arrived at by the AO, on an objective basis. In the present case, we find that the AO has proceeded to apply Rule 8D without giving any finding with regard to the correctness of the claim made by the assessee regarding the disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) has also proceeded on the same basis. We are, therefore, of the view that the orders of the CIT(A) has to be set aside and the issue should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1192
... ...
... ... ..... low and find that addition was made in respect of loan from Dipak Polytex on the ground that confirmation was not filed. The appellant furnished confirmation letter from the said party before the CIT (A).. However, CIT(A) has declined to accept the confirmation and confirmed AO’s action. As the confirmation filed by the assessee goes to the root of the issue for determining the genuineness of the transaction, accordingly this ground is also restored back to the file of the CIT (A) for deciding afresh as per law. 24. Last grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowing loading and unloading expenses of ₹ 38,588/-. The issue has already been considered in the case of ITAA No.989/AHD/2009, hereinabove, respectfully following the same, we confirm the addition of ₹ 38,588/-.. 25. In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed, whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26 - 08 - 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1191
... ...
... ... ..... valued the property at much higher rate than the consideration shown in the sale deed and on this basis additions were made in the hands of all these assessee, under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment?. These additions were deleted by the CIT (A) and the order of the CIT (A) has been affirmed by the ITAT. Vide impugned order the ITAT decided the cases of all joint owners who purchased the said property which includes Smt. Suraj Devi, Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, late Sh. Shiv Narain Aggarwal etc. The Department had filed appeal in the case of Smt. Suraj Devi under Section 260-A of the Act to this Court which was registered as ITA 811/2010 and has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide orders dated 13th August, 2010. Following that order, appeals of other co-owners/assessees i.e. ITA 1551/2010, ITA 1370/2010 and ITA 1660/2010 were also dismissed. Following those orders, these appeals are also dismi ssed as no question of law arises in these appeals.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1190
Nature of expenses - pre-project expenses - Allowable business expenditure - Held that:- In the present case, the expenses related to two projects, namely, Ayirumthengu Project and Bhimji Project. The said projects had to be abandoned due to stiff resistance from local to carry out exploratory drilling by the foreign company and also on account of environmental problems and presence of of Oliva Ridley turtles, a rare specie of turtles around the coastal area. The tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the nature of the assessee's business is mining of ore and for achieving that object it has to carry out exploration activities. The outcome of such exploration is always contingent. The exploration activities being the regular line of assessee's business, expenses incurred on such activities have been allowed as revenue expenditure.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1189
Subsidy with respect to Sales Tax payable - Tribunal holding that the subsidy received by the assessee cannot be reduced from written down value for purpose of computing depreciation of wind mills - Tribunal committed no error in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1188
... ...
... ... ..... as allowable to the assessee on the basis of material available on record. In these facts of the case, we hold that it shall be justified to modify the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under S.263 to the effect that the assessment is set aside to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to reframe the assessment de novo in accordance with law and to adjudicate the issue of deduction allowable to the assessee, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee shall be at liberty to claim deduction under some other provision of law, which shall be decided by the assessing officer on merits thereof. We direct accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Since the very appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the foregoing paras of this order, the Stay Application of the assessee has become infructuous We direct accordingly. Order pronounced in the court on 5.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1187
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The requirement of law under section 68 in the case of capital contribution is that the identity of the contributor is required to be established by the assessee. The identity is not under challenge at all. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the addition.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1186
... ...
... ... ..... appeal before us. 11. Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the assessment order. 12. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this disallowance was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by following the tribunal decision rendered in the case of M/s. Aswani Industries, Surat in I.T.A. No. 2103/Ahd/2010 dated 29.10.2010 and in the case of M/s. Haripriya Processors Pvt. Ltd., Surat in I.T.A. No. 1569/Ahd/2010 dated 08.09.2010. No contrary decision of the Tribunal or any higher forum was brought to our notice by the Ld. D.R. and hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present case. No difference in the facts could be pointed out by the Ld. D.R. and hence, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No.2 of the revenue is rejected. 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th Aug., 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1185
... ...
... ... ..... covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s.Gopal Puhorit reported in 2010 228 CTR (Bom) 582. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
............
|
