|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 385 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1340 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ot possible for that assessee to earn the amount invested in the properties. It held that, by no stretch of imagination, could the assessee be credited for having earned this income, in the course of assessment year nor was she in a position to earn it for a decade or more. The case was of a Muslim lady who is aged about 20 years. In the case on hand, the assessee company was in the process of setting-up of a project and has not commenced production during the year and there was no possibility of the assessee company earning any such income during the course of this assessment year. The receipt in question being receipt of share premium, is a capital receipt and cannot be brought to tax. As already held, the addition is not warranted under section 68 of the Act. Hence, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss this ground raised by the Revenue. 14. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th August 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1338 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... quipments could be isolated for the purpose of putting them to use for the purpose of business of the assessee. We are unable to satisfy ourselves to this interpretation of the Assessing Officer insofar as these assets were used by the assessee for facilitating its employees who have been paid salary and have been granted deduction as salary. The assets have been put to use therefore cannot be held against the assessee in view of the fact that the Assessing Officer has not held the assessee not conducting any business when it allowed the loss as business loss. In view thereof, we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of travelling and conveyance amounting to ₹85,271, delete the disallowance of legal and professional charges of ₹6,43,057 and delete the disallowance amounting to ₹67,772 being depreciation on assets. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse are allowed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 12.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1337 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nyakumari. If all these factors are taken into consideration, it is possible to come to a conclusion that the assessee-trust has not been avoiding registration on flimsy grounds. Assessee is going to earn nothing out of the delay. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that even the delay of 19 years could be seen as a very very inordinate delay, the gravity of the situation has been diluted by the circumstances explained by the assessee-trust. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and to fair and just, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be given registration retrospectively. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to grant the assessee registration retrospectively under sec.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing, on Thursday, the 18th day of August, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1336 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... such FDRs is to be considered as income from business and this will be the set off against deduction of interest. In other words, no separate deduction in respect of interest on FDR to the extent of ₹ 6,36,341/- is to be made. Similarly the interest of ₹ 86,545/ in Bank of Baroda CC A/c is in respect of available of surplus funds for temporary period. Such funds are for the purpose of business and therefore, the interest of ₹ 86,545/- is also the business income. Thus the interest to the extent of ₹ 86,545 plus ₹ 6,36,341 ₹ 7,22,886/- will have to be considered as income under the head business. Moreover, the AO has accepted the interest receipts under P & L A/c of business and hence no double addition is warranted by treating interest receipts as Income from other sources. Hence, addition of ₹ 7,55,721/- is deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . The order is pronounced in the open Court on 05-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1335 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ion made u/s 40A(3) cannot be sustained and has been correctly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The averment of Ground No.4.2 are very crude and general in nature and have no direct nexus with the facts of this case in view of our above finding. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2002-03 stands dismissed. 18. Now, coming to other assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, except for the sums added on account of gross profit, on account of unaccounted sales turnover; and addition made u/s 40A(3), the other facts, circumstances, evidence and submissions of the parties are exactly similar and identical. Therefore, with similar reasoning, we dismiss all the appeals of the Revenue and confirm the finding given by the ld. CIT(A) in his common order dated 21.9.2010. Accordingly, all the four appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. 19. To summarize the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1334 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of capital expenditure. They also have not allowed deduction in respect of office expenditure at thorangal village where steel plant has to come up and also the expenses incurred in respect of office at Bangalore. The reason being that business of lending money discounting of bills etc. are exclusively carried on in the corporate office at Bombay. Therefore the expense with reference to the said office has been given deduction to while computing the income of the assessee. The said amount also includes the interest paid to the persons who have advanced monet of debenture. 34. Therefore in the facts of this case we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the Tribunal, is on a proper appreciation of the material on record keeping in mind the law on the point and is just proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the substantial question of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 35. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1329 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... oto in favour of the assessee by holding that no expenditure can be disallowed under section 40A(3) as assessee has not claimed any expenditure in its Profit & Loss account, therefore, we hold that even part disallowance cannot be made on account of payment made to the parties residing in Jaipur. Accordingly we delete the entire disallowance sustained by ld. CIT (A).’’ The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s 40A(3) to the extent of ₹ 3,42,60,562/-. The difference of ₹ 3,39,562/- is in respect of payment made to the Advocate or Deed Writer. 3.12 Since we have held after following the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s. Ace India Abodes Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) that provisions of Section 40A(3) are not applicable, therefore, the amount of ₹ 3,39,562/- cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3). 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 26-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1328 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... a), it was held that the Tribunal had rightly, following “Lovely Exports”(supra), held that the assessee had discharged its onus and it was for the Department to take action against the creditor companies, since the assessee company had produced copies of bank accounts of the creditor company, their certificate of incorporation and also Income Tax returns filed by them before the AO; and that from these documents, the identity and genuineness of the company stood clearly established. 18. From the above, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has not committed any error whatsoever in deleting the addition made by the AO. The order of the CIT(A) is thus confirmed, rejecting the grievance sought to be raised by the Department, such grievance, to our mind, not having any force. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed, whereas the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed, as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 12..08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1327 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... s issue and thus the CIT is justified in setting aside the order as it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 14. Having heard the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that this issue was neither adjudicated in the assessment order nor any query was raised by the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. During the course of hearing, nothing has been placed on record to establish that this issue was ever examined by the assessing officer. We, therefore, of the view that there is no application of mind by the A.O. on this issue and the CIT has made out a case that by accepting the claim of the assessee the assessment order of the A.O. has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT in this regard, we confirm his order. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 3.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1325 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 996/-, Tainwala Chemicals and Plastics (India) Limited was a profit making company and there was no reason to believe that the said company would suffer losses in the near future. The market value of the shares on the date of investment were between ₹ 60/- to ₹ 80/- per share and on the date of conversion of naked convertible warrants, the share value had fallen to ₹ 14/- per share and as per the SEBI guidelines the shares were offered on the date of conversion at ₹ 72.70 per shares. In these circumstances, the assessee took a commercial decision to forgo the amount invested in naked convertible warrants than to invest further amount by subscribing to the shares at a price offered by the company. Consequently, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT in allowing the loss incurred by the assessee on forfeiture of the amounts invested by the assessee in naked convertible warrants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1322 - ITAT PUNE
Charitable Institution u/s 12A - Tax deduction on donations u/s 80G - Enquiry u/s 80G(5) - Assessee, charitable institution, applied for renewal of the recognition u/s 80G. CIT while examing the approval under section 80G, the assessee has been denied the exemption u/s 11 & 12 by the Assessing Office
HELD THAT:- In the case of SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALI. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2008 (4) TMI 396 - ITAT PUNE-A], based on similar facts, CIT denied recognition under section 80G for the reason that the exemption under sections 11 & 12 had been denied to the assessee in the assessment proceedings. As per the Bench, such objection would not ipso facto militate against denial of recognition under section 80G as long as in principle and on a prima facie basis assessee complied with the conditions set out in section 80G(5)(i) to (v).
Having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of NN. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1999 (5) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], it is clear that in so far as the relevance of 80G(5)(i) is concerned, it is to examine the eligibility of the assessee applicant to claim that its income is not liable to be included in the computation of total income. The Hon’ble High Court emphasized that for the purposes of enquiry under section 80G(5), it is to be seen whether the Trust is registered u/s 12 or not. It has been specifically observed that, “Once a trust is registered under section 12A, its income from property, which includes donations whether covered under section 11(1)(d) or u/s 12 such donations are deemed to be income from property, is not to be included in its total income u/s 11 or section 12.
In the present case, the objection raised by the CIT to deny the recognition u/s 80G is founded on irrelevant considerations by embarking upon an exercise which is only in the realm of assessment proceedings. Undeniably the assessee is registered u/s 12A and such registration continues.
In this view of the matter, in our view, the assessee fulfils the condition prescribed under clause (i) of section 80G(5). There being no other objection raised by the CIT, we therefore proceed on the basis that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under clauses (i) to (v) and is thus eligible for renewal of recognition u/s 80G(5) - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1320 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... 315 (SC) and CIT vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR 2 (SC) , which were followed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd. 287 ITR 479 (Del) and in a recent decision in the case of CIT vs. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 132 (Del) , wherein it was held that deposits of margin money by the assessee with the banks was inextricably linked to the furnishing of the bank guarantee by the assessee and, therefore, income from interest on deposits constitutes business income and not income from other sources. Respectfully following the above decisions, we are of the view that interest income of ₹ 61,622/- is to be treated as icome rom business. Since we have already directed the A.O. to adopt the rate of net profit at 2% on gross contractual receipts of the assessee as its business income, in our opinion, no separate addition of ₹ 61,622/- is required. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1319 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rendered outside India becomes allowable expenditure and the same is outside rigors of section 40(a)(ia). In the instant case, the CIT(A) observed that the assessing officer had not been able to establish that there was specific intention of the payee to receive the payment within the territory of India, therefore, the CIT(A) rightly did not agree with the view taken by the assessing officer with regard to the addition made on this issue and the CIT(A) was justified in directing the assessing officer to delete the said addition. After considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was not to be interfered with and, accordingly, the same was to be upheld.” 5. Respectfully following the above order of this Tribunal, we are inclined to decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court 23. 8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1313 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... vity of a co-operative society, it means the corporate activity of the society, that is to say, the combination of operations undertaken by the co-operative society whether or not they amount to a business, trade or profession in the ordinary sense. Clause(c) of Section 80P(2) is intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business but attributable to an activity which results in profits or gains. Letting out of surplus space in the building owned and used by the assessee is not such an activity falling under clause (c). The rent thus received by the society is not eligible for the exemption provided under section 80P(2)(c). 5. Considering the covered nature of the issue, we find that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P in respect of the rental receipts received by the assessee3. Accordingly, the grounds raised are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 26 -8-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1312 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of ₹ 5.00 lacs paid to ex-employee as pension. We find that ex-employee Shri Kshirsagar had been sanctioned pension of ₹ 4.00 lacs w.e.f. 1.4.2004 which had been increased to ₹ 5.00 lacs during the year. The sum of ₹ 4.00 lacs has already been allowed as deduction in Assessment Year 2005- 06. Therefore, allowability of claim is not in dispute. The CIT(A) disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no evidence of agreement of partners to pay increased amount. In our view the claim should not be disallowed on such ground. No amount can be paid to employee or ex-partner without the consent of the partners. The claim is otherwise allowable and there is no dispute on the amount paid. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1311 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ime of assessment and the explanation given by the Assessee was accepted by the assessing officer. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that nothing has been brought on record by the CIT to show as to how the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous. 4. The Tribunal has held that when the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view on the material facts, the CIT cannot invoke his Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely with a view to take a different view in the matter. As the CIT has passed the order under Section 263 of the Act on the basis of mere change of opinion, the decision of the ITAT to quash the said order cannot be faulted. 5. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1310 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... d by any other authority. Once Notification is issued donor is qualified for weighted deduction referred in Sec.35 of the Act. He further submitted that there is no violation of Rule 46A since the relevant CBDT’s Notification dated.12.04.2007 was produced before the Assessing Officer as recorded in Point No.9 of the Assessee’s letter dated.22.07.2009 written to the AO and which has also been available in assessee’s Paper Book. Since CBDT’s Notification dated.12.04.2007, which approves donee i.e. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 35(1) of the Act and same was furnished by assessee during assessment proceedings, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance as made by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, this ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 31. In the result, all the appeals as well as Cross Objection are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 32. Order pronounced in open court on 30.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1309 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as been disallowed only on the basis of ownership. It has been held by the Apex Court in Mysore Minerals v CIT, 239 ITR 775(SC), that depr4eciation is admissible in case the assessee is beneficial owner of the asset. Even otherwise the appellant has initiated action to transfer the asset in its name and the vehicles are already shown in its books. Ground No.4 is allowed.” 9. Having heard the submission of Learned Departmental Representative, we find no force in this ground of the Revenue specially when the facts as well as the evidences have established that the vehicles in question were used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and the same were duly reflected in the books of account of the assesseecompany. We find no fallacy in the view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals), hence, affirm the same. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 12/ 08 /2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1308 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ile of the AO with similar directions. ITA No.2701/Ahd/2004 A.Y. 2000-2001 8. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the AO in imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 9. Since we have set aside the assessment orders of the AO in ITANo.868 and 2699/Ahd/2004 and restored the matter back to the file of the AO with direction to assess the assessee’s income from finance business under the head “Income from business” in accordance with law. Consequentially, the penalty based on such assessment cannot survive, accordingly, we delete the impugned penalty. However, the AO is at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceedings after determination of the income in set aside proceedings, if so warrants. 10. In result, appeals of the assessee being ITA No.868 and 2699/Ahd/2004 are deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose while ITA No.2701/Ahd/2004 is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 5th August, 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1305 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gned judgment, however, rejected the assessee's case placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom.). The assessee is therefore in appeal before us. In a detailed judgment passed by us today in Tax Appeal No.978 of 2008 and other connected appeals, we have taken the same view as that of the Bombay High Court in Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (supra), wherein it has been held that not only difference in sale consideration, but the entire sale consideration upon transfer of DEPB credit would be covered under section 28 (iiid) of the Act. We have also granted certificate under Article 133 and 134 of the Constitution in those cases. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed without giving separate reasons. At the request of the counsel for the appellant, in this case also we find that same issue arises and the provisions made in the group of appeal will apply in the present case as well.
........
|
