|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 385 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... 12 of the assessee is that the AO has passed the order u/s 153A read with Section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not annulling the assessment order. 14.2 We have heard both the parties. The powers of the ld. CIT(A) are coterminous with the powers of the AO and the assessee has been provided adequate opportunity before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not annulling the assessment order. Thus Ground No. 12 of the assessee is dismissed. 15.1 The Ground No. 7th of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to give set off for the unaccounted/ suppressed sale consideration as such suppressed sale consideration is available for making the unexplained expenses or consideration. 15.2 No specific case has been pointed out by the revenue. Hence, this ground of appeal is academic. 16 In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are partly allowed The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1299
... ...
... ... ..... f ₹ 2,64,862/- as claimed by assessee and also considering the nature of business of assessee, we are of the considered view that it will be reasonable to restrict the disallowance to approximately 15% of the claim of assessee, which comes to ₹ 39,700/- (approx.). Hence, we restrict the disallowance to ₹ 40,000/- as against ₹ 75,000/- sustained by ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence, Ground No. 6 of the appeal is allowed in part by restricting the disallowance to ₹ 40,000/-. 23. Ground No. 7 of the appeal is as under - “That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charging of interest under section. 234B although the assessee was not liable to advance tax under section 208 & 209 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 24. Since the said ground is consequential in nature, it does not require any specific adjudication. 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/08/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1298
... ...
... ... ..... nding of fact that the assessee in fact carried on agricultural operations and that the orders passed to that effect in assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 have been accepted by the revenue. For earning agricultural income, it is not necessary that the assessee must own the land and it is enough if it is established that the agricultural operations have been actually carried on by the assessee. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the ITAT that even in the past the assessee has been carrying agricultural operations, in the absence of any material to the contrary, the decision of the ITAT cannot be faulted. 4. In the result, we see no merit in all these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1296
... ...
... ... ..... age 11 of paper book, Shri Anant Himatsingka received ₹ 1,00,000/- from Shri Vinay Gupta and not from assessee. Hence, considering the documentary evidence placed on record, in the light of deposition of assessee and subsequent letters placed on record (supra), we are of the considered view that the addition on the basis of said seized receipts aggregating ₹ 3,00,000/- in the hands of assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is not justified and if any addition is made, it could have been considered in the hands of Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Vinay Gupta respectively and not in the hands of assessee. Therefore, we delete the said addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- made in assessment year 2004-05 by allowing Ground No. 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2004-05. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 is dismissed and whereas appeal for assessment year 2004-05 of the assessee is allowed in part. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/08/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1295
... ...
... ... ..... before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that no question of law arises where the genuineness of the payment has not been doubted. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur v. Vijay Kumar Goyal3 , relying on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Achal Alloys Pvt. Ltd.1 took the similar view and held that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arose for adjudication of the appeal. 8. Subsequently, this Court, in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur v. M/s. Bukhari Enterprises4 also took the same view and held that the Tribunal has categorically held that the AO has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the question of law, as raised therein, was answered accordingly and as such, the question of law referred in this reference petition, has already been settled. 9. In view of the above, question of law raised herein is well settled and is answered the in affirmative.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1294
... ...
... ... ..... er for the development of the housing project, the assessee should not be allowed deduction u/s. 80IB (10). The case of M/s. Radhe Developers & Other (includes the case of the appellant) vide order in ITA No.2482/AHD/2006 dated 29-06-2007. The facts and circumstances of the assessee are identical to the cases decided by Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad. Also all the pleas raised by the Assessing Officer have been effectively dealt with and discussed in the said order and thereafter Hon’ble ITAT has allowed the deduction under section 80IB (10). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, the deduction under section 80 IB(10) was rightly allowed by CIT (A). 8. As the facts and circumstances during both the years under consideration are pari-materia, we respectfully follow the decision of the coordinate Bench and confirm the order of CIT (A). 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26 - 08 - 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1293
... ...
... ... ..... g in the instant appeal. Hence, the ground of appeal No. 10 of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 12.1 The 7th ground of appeal filed by the revenue is general as there is no specific issue of allowing set off of suppressed sale consideration as against availability of unaccounted money. 12.2 Before parting this appeal, it is mentioned that the assessee in assessee in his written submission has stated that no addition can be made because there has been no incriminating documents found during the course of search. This issue is academic because the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 is a regular assessment after the search as search took place in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. Hence, it is a case of regular assessment made u/s 153A and it is not case of re-assessment. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1290
... ...
... ... ..... lied on by the ld. DR are distinguishable on facts. In the case of - Akbar Travels of India (P) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Settlement (2010) 236 CTR (Bom) 37, (ii) Sahitya Mudranalaya & Ors. Vs. Incometax Settlement Commission & Ors. (2009) 312 ITR 115, and (iii) CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 259 ITR 449/475 (SC) relied on by him the issue before the courts was chargeability and computation of interest u/s 234 consequent upon settlement of case by the Settlement Commission. In the case -the South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, the issue before the court was charging of interest u/s 234B(3) of the Act. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in holding that in this case interest u/s 234B should be charged for the period 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2000 i.e the date of the regular assessment u/s 143(3) and therefore the order passed by him is hereby upheld. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 5/8/11.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... to other aspects which have been touched by the learned Authorised Representative, then also it has to be held that the addition could not be made in the case of the assessee simply on the basis of report obtained from DVO particularly in the circumstances when the assessee has produced on record the comparable instance which is more appropriate than the instance applied by the DVO and also on the ground that no material whatsoever has been brought on record by the Revenue to suggest that the assessee had in fact invested more amount than the amount stated in the title deed. The case law relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative duly support such proposition. The addition being unwarranted in law requires deletion. Accordingly, it is held that the addition has wrongly been sustained by learned CIT(A) and the same is deleted. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1278
... ...
... ... ..... the actual expenditure incurred for earning of tax free income then the application of sec. 14A is ruled out. She has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Yatish Trading Co P Ltd vs ACIT reported in 129 ITD 237. 3.1 On the other hand, the ld DR accepted the proposition that in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg P Ltd (supra) Rule 8D is not applicable for the Assessment Year under consideration; therefore, this issue required to be adjudicated afresh. 4 In view of the above, we remit this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law and in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg P Ltd (supra) as well as the decision relied upon by the ld AR in the case of Yatish Trading Co P Ltd (supra). 5 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on the 5th day of Aug 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1277
... ...
... ... ..... rokerage to the sub-brokers for mobilizing business in securities was not required to deduct the tax. In this view of the matter the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of NSE charges is also not justified. 5. Thus both the disallowances are deleted and the first ground is allowed. 6. The second ground relates to the disallowance of travelling expenses of ₹ 34,690/- and miscellaneous expenses of ₹ 27,062/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce all the vouchers. The Assessing Officer has estimated the disallowance at 10 of the expenditure. After hearing both the sides and after going through the records we find that the disallowance is somewhat on the higher side and therefore the same is reduced to 5 of the total expenditure. The ground is partly allowed. 7. Ground Nos (3) and (4) are general and require no decision. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1276
... ...
... ... ..... t are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be executed since the final assessment order and the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued in gross violation of the interim order of this court. The same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be enforced. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost. 41. Before parting, the court records and cautions the petitioner that it is always appropriate to bring on record subsequent proceedings initiated by an authority after the filing of the writ petition, and if an order has been passed by an authority which is pre-judicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same should be brought on record with a specific prayer for its quashing. In the present case, subsequent proceedings have not been brought on record, which was however not fatal to the result of the case, but, nonetheless it has an impact on the ultimate result of the case.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1272
... ...
... ... ..... take necessary steps to get the directions implemented in accordance with law. But, the absence of any response to these reminders may not form the basis of acceptance of working of peak credit given by the assessee-respondent. However, had that been the case simply, it could have formed a ground of close scrutiny and interference by this Court but, both the authorities have pointed out that the department could not point out any infirmity in the working of peak credit and therefore, order warrants no interference. Observations hereinabove are to ensure that such a trend may not get vindicated by order of this Court. However, considering the fact that the matter is very old and before this Court, the exercise of fact finding is not to be undertaken and further more, at such a belated stage, sending the matter back to the authorities is not found desirable, and therefore, upholding the working of peak credit and the tax assessed on the basis thereon, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1271
... ...
... ... ..... in doubt. The AO himself has observed that in normal circumstance the submissions of the assessee would have been accepted. To our mind, the assessee can be put to the tax liability only if by his conduct he has committed a breach of any provision of IT Act and the income chargeable to tax should be brought under the ambit of the provision. The AO could have enquired the genuineness of the loan in the year the assessee took them and could have made addition under s. 68 of the Act. But in the present year, no addition can be made under ss. 69 and 69A of the Act. Learned first appellate authority has examined this issue in detail and we do not see any reason to interfere in his order. 8. At the time of hearing, learned counsel of the assessee, did not press the cross-objection, hence, the cross-objection is rejected. 9. In the result, this appeal by the Revenue as well as the cross-objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/8/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1270
... ...
... ... ..... the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in not deciding the issue as raised by the appellant before it regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee Society on account of interest accrued on loan given to its Treasurer without making any provision for accrued interest thereon in its books of accounts in violation of Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act. List in the next week.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1269
... ...
... ... ..... ns, it is not an activity carried on for profit. Therefore, it cannot be said to be profits and gains of the business. Accordingly, s. 11(4A) will have no application. Therefore, we hold the assessee-trust be allowed exemption under s. 11 even in respect of the income from rent from letting out of the auditorium and furniture and fixtures. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal for all the years is allowed.” 4.2 The decision in the case of the assessee and in the case of Galib Institute will show that the hiring of the auditorium to various persons was in furtherance of its objects. This decision in the case of the assessee has not been challenged. This issue is fundamental issue permeating all the assessment of the assessee. Therefore, in absence of any challenge to the earlier order, the revenue cannot be allowed to change its stand in this year. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 5 August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1268
... ...
... ... ..... the trucks were registered by 14th October 2003. This indicates that the trucks were ready for use around the first week of October 2003. It cannot be stated that assessee malafidely claimed more depreciation. It can be a bonafide mistake in claiming full depreciation on the reason that the trucks were purchased before 9th September 2003. The date of body building were shown by the CIT(A) as 10th November 2003. This itself does not establish that the body building was done later as the registration of the trucks was done on 14th October 2003 itself. There can be no registration without body being built. Since we are of the opinion that there is a bonafide mistake in claiming higher depreciation, respectfully following the principles established as stated above, we have no hesitation in cancelling penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1267
... ...
... ... ..... assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before invoking the provisions, the onus is upon the CIT to make out a case that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If the assessment order is only erroneous and not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the assessment order cannot be revised. At the most by assessing the assessee as an AOP, the order can be called to be erroneous but by any stretch of imagination it cannot be called to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore, of the view that for assessing the assessee as an AOP in place of PFAS, the assessment order cannot be revised. We therefore, of the view that CIT(A) was not justified in invoking the jurisdictions u/s 263 and thereafter setting aside the assessment order. We accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT. 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 29.8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1265
N.P. determination - confirming the action of Assessing Officer in estimating net income from work contract of the assessee @ 10% on gross contract receipts - Held that:- We find that the assessee is an Engineering Cooperative Society and engaged in the business of execution of work contracts including retail distribution of LPG and manufacturing of bricks and RCC pole casting. In view of this specific nature of assessee’s business and as conceded by the assessee i.e. a fair and reasonable estimate of 6% of net profit of gross contract receipt will meet the ends of justice and we estimate net profit at 6%, in view of facts and circumstances that assessee’s outstanding sundry creditors are bogus and books of account rejected are not supported by vouchers. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by applying 6% of net profit on gross contract receipts. Appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - In case of estimate of net profit, as is in the given facts and circumstances of the case, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied and we delete the same. Orders of the lower authorities are reversed and appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1264
... ...
... ... ..... wherein an admission of substantial question of law in quantum proceedings by the jurisdictional High Court lends credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that claim of the assessee could have been considered for deduction as per a person properly instructed in law and is not completely debarred at all, the mere fact of confirmation of disallowance would not per se lead to imposition of penalty. Since the disallowance in quantum have been held by the jurisdictional High Court to be involving a substantial question of law, the penalty is not exigible under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, penalty is not automatic on the basis of quantum addition. In view of above discussion, order of the CIT(A) deleting penalties in both the years needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th August 2011.
........
|
