|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 385 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1259
... ...
... ... ..... business of banking or money lending. This fact is not in dispute. The assessee has written off of the account of the parties on account of one time settlement. The interest income earned has been included in the income of the earlier years which got exempt by virtue of deduction u/s 80P of the Act to which the assessee was eligible. Therefore, the interest income has been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. 9. In view of these facts, since the conditions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2)(i) of the Act satisfied in the case of the assessee, the assessee will be eligible for deduction u/s 36(i)(vii) on account of bad debts. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of bad debts. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. To sum up the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 30th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1257
... ...
... ... ..... lief is, however, subject to the rider that the allowability in deduction in the current year is subject to verification of corresponding adjustment in the year in which next settlement date falls. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 3. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year. 4. Consistent with the stand taken for the assessment year 2003-04, we uphold the grievance of the assessee in principle and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance of ₹ 98,84,000. This relief is, however, subject to the rider that the allowability in deduction in the current year is subject to verification of corresponding adjustment in the year in which next settlement date falls. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 26th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1256
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of Section 147. Thereby it was to accept the same facts in stating the Tribunal’s decision was to be a controverting decision for the assessee to commit another mistake. The CBDT had denied condonation of delay cannot be stated to be the reason for Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s.147. The assessee rightly claimed relief before the learned CIT(A) of non-inclusion of relief granted by the ITAT for determining the loss for the Assessment Year 2002-03 was therefore, considered by the learned CIT(A) being a general direction to the Assessing Officer in the matter of carry forward / set off of losses could not be income having escaped assessment u/s.147/148. In view of the above, we do not find merit in the ground raised by the Revenue in this regard. We therefore, uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 12.08.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1252
... ...
... ... ..... t the assessee has maintained separate books of account in respect of exhibition activity. In this view of the matter, the first question raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 4. As regards second question is concerned, counsel on both sides agree that the said question is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Institute of Banking reported in 2003 264 I.T.R. 110. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 5. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the three assessment years before us. We respectfully following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case viz. M/s. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (supra) confirm the orders of the Ld. CIT (A). 6. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1251
... ...
... ... ..... cted by the JPC and SEBI regarding the Security Scam 2001 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was justified in holding that the disallowances of interest of ₹ 17,47,23,076/relating to the funds lent as interest free loans to sister concerns was not tenable ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that speculation loss can be set off against income from other sources without appreciating the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. As regards question (iii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the Revenue in the assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal No.4280 of 2009 has been rejected by this Court on 11th January 2011. Hence, question (iii) cannot be entertained. 3. The appeal is admitted on questions (i), (ii) and (iv). 4. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.4280 of 2009.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1250
... ...
... ... ..... . Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions and keeping in view that there is no finding of the AO that the details furnished by the assessee are found to be incorrect or false we are of the view that, under such circumstances, the penalty is not leviable. Further making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view also finds support from the recent decisions in CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H) and CIT vs. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 73(P&H). Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. The grounds taken by the revenue are therefore, rejected. 12. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1249
... ...
... ... ..... o not agree with the ld. AR that the issue is debatable. The claim of the appellant is not allowable and is mistake apparent from record in as much as it is not supported by any material on record and is also contrary to the P&L a/c enclosed with the return. The order of the AO is confirmed. Ground no.1,2 & 3 are dismissed.” 4. We find that the Assessing Officer has initiated rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act to re-compute rebate u/s 88E of the Act by disallowing the claim of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income allowable. We find that this issue is highly debatable and even it is not clear how the business expenses can be disallowed by invoking rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Since this is a debatable issue we need not to go into merits of the case and we quash orders of the lower authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 05.08.11
-
2011 (8) TMI 1248
Taxability in India - income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be exigible to tax in India.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1246
... ...
... ... ..... peals) in his order has recorded a finding that in the facts of the present case, the balance written back in respect of the expenditure incurred amounting to ₹ 6,53,961/is liable to be considered as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. In such a case, whether the decision of this Court in the case of Dresser Rand India Private Limited (supra) would apply is the question. 5. Since this aspect of the matter is not considered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by consent, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside on the fourth question and the said issue is restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration and in accordance with law. While passing fresh order, the assessing officer shall also take into consideration, the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Pfizer Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 62 (Bom). 6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1242
... ...
... ... ..... g the eligible amount of deduction u/s. 80IB, in terms of our above observations. We direct accordingly. 11. Next grievance of the assessee relates to charging of interest u/s. 234D. The issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated 330 ITR 578, wherein it was held that section 234D is applicable only from Assessment Year 2004-05 and onwards, and not in the earlier assessment years, therefore, no interest under that provision of section 234D could be levied for the period prior to Assessment Year 2004-05. Since the assessment year under consideration is Assessment Year 2003-04, the provisions of section 234D is not applicable, accordingly we direct the A.O. not to charge any interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 12. In the result, appeals of the revenue in both the years are dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in Open Court on 12 - 08- 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... AT against the order of CIT(Appeals), the issue is very much debatable and the penalty for concealment cannot be sustained on debatable issues. Further, the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench vide order dated 11-08-2008 in ITAT No.783/Ahd/2007 set aside the order of C.I.T. (A) and restored the matter to the file of the C.I.T.(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, accordingly the appeal was disposed of and the appellant has been allowed the deduction u/s.80IB (10) vide order of even date. Therefore also penalty does not survive. Accordingly the penalty levied is cancelled.” 7. In the light of the above discussion and the view taken by us, since the addition do not survive, therefore, consequence thereupon, we hereby hold that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. In the result, Revenue’s ground is dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 5th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1240
... ...
... ... ..... ’ or ‘income from house property’. Merely because claim made by the assessee has been rejected, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed any particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had deleted the penalty. No fault can be found with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1238
Validity of assessment u/s 153A r w s 153B - Held that:- CIT(A) was not correct in law in holding that assessment for the previous year in which search took place or requisition was made had to be completed under the normal provisions of the Act.
Considering the above reported decision of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion, the additional ground, which is legal in nature and raised by the assessee’s counsel for the first time before us is admitted and adjudicated in favour of the assessee making the assessment order invalid. Accordingly, the additional ground is allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... ee that he was not required to maintain books of account and further the assessee co-operated with the department in recomputing his income as and when it was brought to his notice that provisions of section 44AF were not applicable. It was, therefore, contended that there was reasonable cause for assessee’s failure to maintain regular books of account and accordingly penalty be deleted. 4. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. Having noticed the factual position, we find no reasons to uphold the penalty, inasmuch as the bona fides of reasons canvassed by the assessee have not been disputed. We, therefore, considering the provisions of section 273B read with section 271A of the Act, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty of ₹ 25,000/-. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on this 5th Day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1236
... ...
... ... ..... -vis M/s AFPL are not fulfilled. It was, further, observed that shareholders of various different persons cannot be clubbed to decide the issue of fulfillment of conditions laid down in Sec 2(22)(e) of the Act. He was of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the assessee, support his findings. 8. In view of legal and factual discussions, including the case laws cited and relied upon by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity, in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and hence, the same are upheld. 9. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross objection No. 58/Chandi/2011 - AY 2007-08 10. In view of the findings recorded above, as also in the light of submission of the ld. ‘AR’ that the Cross objection intended to support the appellate order. The impugned cross objections is dismissed as infructuous. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced on 24 .8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1235
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court and that of the Special Bench, as rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, neither the assessment order nor the appellate order consists of any discussion regarding the length of the period for which software was acquired against the payment of license fee. In such facts and circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to restore this matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to look into the length of periods of each software acquired during the assessment year under question and then to apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and the Special Bench cited supra. In other words, in principle, the AO has to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High Court and Special Bench cited supra but after verification of the length of the period of each software acquired by the assessee. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1234
Whether the assessee, UPSRTC is obliged to deduct tax at source under the provision contained in section 194C or 194-I for payments made to the contractors by way of hire charges - Held that:- It is held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax on the payments made to various contractors u/s. 194C only, and that the provision contained in section 194-I is not applicable.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1233
... ...
... ... ..... ng activity of a business concern but safely it can be hold as a profit socking activity of an investor. Resultantly, our view goes in favour of the assessee, thus the grounds are allowed.” 11. In the instant case, from the facts, it is clear that the assessee, at the time of purchase of shares, had no intention of doing business. The intention, at the time of purchase of shares, is that of an investor. No borrowed funds were used and there was no subsequent purchase and sale of shares. Thus, on these factual matrix, we uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the income in question should be assessed under the head “Capital Gains” and not under the head “Income From Business”. Thus, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. To sum up, in the result, appeal by the assessee as well as appeal by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1232
... ...
... ... ..... e case in the light of the above decisions, it is undisputed fact that the assessee had continued to show the amounts in question as liability in its balance sheet. The liabilities reflected in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liabilities. The learned CIT(A) also found that credits are very old however, he was not justified in holding that since confirmations of the creditors were not filed, therefore, they no longer exist. Merely because liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. The provisions of section 41 (1) of the IT Act thus would not apply to the matter. The issue is squarely covered by the order of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shri Nitin S. Garg (supra). We accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 5,14,616/-. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1231
... ...
... ... ..... legal proposition, we therefore hold that the ld.CIT(A) had gone wrong in directing the AO to apply a uniform rate of ₹ 100/- per sq.yrd. as “onmoney” alleged to have been received on all the sales transaction. In the absence of some specific evidence such an observation can be said to be merely on presumption or supposition. We hereby reverse the said finding of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to compute the addition of “on-money” in respect of those sales of plots which were found recorded in the said seized material. In this manner, the ground raised by the Cross Objector is hereby partly allowed. 9. Rest of the grounds in the Cross Objection are either consequential or do not require any specific adjudication at this stage, hence, treated as infructuous in nature. 10. In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals as well as Assessee’s cross objections are partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 26/ 08 /2011.
........
|
