|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 190 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 427
... ...
... ... ..... claim of unsecured loan is concerned, relevant evidence was placed before the Assessing Officer to state that it was received through account payee cheque. Therefore, on both the issues, the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee after making proper verification and enquiry. Therefore, his order cannot be called to be erroneous. For exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the ld. CIT is required to be satisfied on both essential ingredients that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Since the impugned assessment order may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, but it is not erroneous. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT has not properly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside his order passed under section 263 of the Act. 14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.1.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 424
... ...
... ... ..... ne ORDER The special leave petition shall stand over for eight weeks. In the meantime, we direct the Settlement Commission to dispose of the pending proceedings vide Application No.563/KNK-III/15/2000-IT, from the date of receipt of this Order.
-
2012 (1) TMI 423
... ...
... ... ..... or deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act and he allowed accordingly. Subsequently, he noticed that the audit report in Form No. 10CCB is not enclosed with the return of income or even it was not filed during the course of assessment proceedings. He accordingly, reopened the assessment after recording reasons and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the reason that audit report in Form No. 10CCB is not available. We find that the assessee is not making any fresh claim for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act but merely furnishing the documents to substantiate its claim made during the course of assessment and even reassessment proceedings. Hence, we find no infirmity in allowing the claim of deduction even though the assessee has filed audit report in Form No. 10CCB during the course of reassessment proceedings. We uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of revenue s appeal is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 10. Order pronounced in open court on 20.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 422
... ...
... ... ..... upreme Court and the conditions laid down there-under. 7. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls (I) Pvt. Ltd cited (Supra). Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing. 8. Coming to the Cross-objection of the assessee, we find that the assessee has filed the cross-objection against the findings of the Assessing Officer. Thus, it can be seen that it is only in support of the CIT(A)’s order, wherein the assessee has got relief. As we have already set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the file of the AO, this cross objection has become infructuous and needs no adjudication. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th Jan, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 420
... ...
... ... ..... s related to amount of enhanced compensation and also interest thereupon, this Court considering similar matter in Kulwant Rai and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 10333 of 2011 decided on 2.6.2011, noticed that the interest element on enhanced compensation was taxable in the year of receipt and in such a situation, the petitioners were required to file the income tax returns as tax was payable on the said amount. It was further observed that the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax returns and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source was found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners were entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2012 (1) TMI 419
... ...
... ... ..... ed A.R. pointed out that ld. CIT(Appeals) followed the decision of Honble jurisdictional High Court in the assessees own case reported in 318 ITR 435 and decided that lease equalization charge debited was not a reserve and could not be added back to profits of company under Section 115JA of the Act. 9. Learned D.R. fairly admitted that the issue stood covered in favour of assessee by the above decision of Honble jurisdictional High Court. 10. We do not find any decision of Honble Apex Court which goes against the decision of Honble jurisdictional High Court in the assessees case mentioned supra, where it was held that lease equalization charges could not be considered as reserve and added back to the profits for working out the book profit. We do not find any error in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 11. Ground No.3 stands dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 31st January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 418
... ...
... ... ..... owance to 20% which comes to Rs. 42,882/-. This ground was also raised by the assessee against confirming the disallowance. However, the same has not been pressed. 25. After going through the orders of AO and ld. CIT (A), we see no unreasonableness in the finding of ld. CIT (A) who was reasonable in restricting the disallowance to 20% against 50% disallowed by AO which was disallowed on adhoc basis only. Accordingly, we confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) in this respect. 26. Ground No. 4 we have already disposed off. 27. Ground No. 5 is against deleting addition of Rs. 61,490/- on account of low household expenses. 28. Since ld. CIT (A) followed the order of his predecessor for earlier year, therefore, here also we find no unreasonableness in the order of ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, order of ld. CIT (A) is confirmed on this issue also. 29. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and appeal of the department is dismissed. 30. The order is pronounced on 19.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 415
... ...
... ... ..... t in Raja Ram Contractors Vs. CIT in ITA No. 689 of 2009, date of decision 7.4.2010, has upheld application of net profit rate of 10% as Net Profit Rate. It has been further laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that where the books of account have been rejected, the estimation of income by applying of flat rate inherently involves an element of subjectivity.“ 8. In view of the aforesaid decision and the facts being similar, we find no merit in the adoption of NP rate of 12% to determine the income in the hands of the assessee. We direct the Assessing Officer to determine the income in the hands of the assessee by applying the net profit rate of 7% as the assessee has failed to produce complete vouchers to establish its case. The ground No.2 of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed and ground No.3 is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 414
... ...
... ... ..... observed that in any case, this issue was debatable and on such debatable issue, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied. We find that this issue being debatable and there being decisions in favour of the assessee at the time of filing of return for the relevant assessment year, it could not be said that the conduct of the assessee in claiming the deduction was not bona fide. In this view of the matter, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which was accordingly cancelled by the CIT(A) and the order of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Ground No.3 of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 17. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee in I.T.A. No. 3455/Ahd/2010 is allowed and the appeal of the revenue in I.T.A. No. 3188/Ahd/2010 and the cross objection in C.O. No.07/Ahd/2011 of the assessee are dismissed. 18. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (1) TMI 413
... ...
... ... ..... evision order did not deal with privilege fee disallowed by the AO. Therefore, according to him, the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable. 6. The learned DR however, supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. Having considered the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the order of the CIT(A) is to be upheld as the order passed u/s 143(3) was set aside by the revision order u/s 263 whereby the entire assessment has been set aside for denovo consideration of the AO. The Assessing Officer has also given effect to the order of the CIT u/s 263 by passing assessment order u/s 143(3) read with sec. 263. In these circumstances, the order u/s 143(3) dated 30.10.2006 has become non-est and the appeal against non-est assessment is not maintainable. 8. In view of the same, we uphold the finding of the CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th Jan, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 410
... ...
... ... ..... by the petitioner will stand confirmed and the Assessing Officer under the Central Income Tax Act namely, first respondent, is directed to waive collection of tax on so much of the business income assessed from sale of crude palm oil for and up to the assessment year 2004-2005. 6. In view of our judgment in ITA382/2010 and connected cases referred above, agricultural income tax assessments completed from 2005-06 onwards will stand set aside with direction to the second respondent to modify the assessments for all assessment years in line with the assessments completed by the first respondent under Central Income Tax Act and assess only so much of the income attributable to agricultural operations under the AIT Act. Excess tax if any paid under the AIT Act should be refunded to the petitioner. 7. Petitioner will remit tax to the Central Income Tax Department for the assessment years 2005-06 onwards based on the Central Income tax assessments. Writ Petition is allowed as above.
-
2012 (1) TMI 408
... ...
... ... ..... as Malhotra, Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 400
... ...
... ... ..... e Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.” In this view of the matter, we remit the matter back to Assessing Officer to verify the dates whether the payment is made within the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act or not. If the payment is made within the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then addition should be deleted in full. We order accordingly. This ground of appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Order is pronounced in open court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 399
... ...
... ... ..... 0/- and deposit of ₹ 7,44,600/- do suggest that amount received back in business were deposited. The assessee has not maintained the books of account. The onus was on the assessee to have explained the reasons for such withdrawal when there is cash in hand available. On the basis of human probability, we feel that the assessee has utilized the funds for business and withdrawal & deposit in bank account might have been arising from business. Looking to the peak cash balance, we feel that it will be fair and reasonable to estimate that deposit to the extent of ₹ 2 lakh may be out of funds used in business. 8. It is not a case where the entire deposit can be added as the assessee has made withdrawals from Bank. Hence the addition confirmed by ld. CIT (A) to the extent of ₹ 32,88,000/- is restricted to ₹ 2 lakh. In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in open court on 31.01.2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 397
... ...
... ... ..... of set off of loss u/s 72A of the Act and in response to the same whether the assessee filed any reply to the Assessing Officer, the ld. A.R. for the assessee could not produce any evidence to show that such an enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and the assessee had filed his reply to the same and after taking into consideration the same, the Assessing Officer had made the assessment. Further, from the assessment order also, we find that there is no discussion in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer regarding the set off of loss u/s 72A of the Act. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, there is no mistake in the order of the ld. CIT which calls for our interference. Accordingly, the same is confirmed and the 6 ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. No other point or was argued or pressed by the ld. A.R. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 11th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 396
... ...
... ... ..... n the earlier year i.e., A.Y. 2005-06 in the assessee’s own case, so respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2011 in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.142/Bang/2010 for the A.Y. 2005-06, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. 12. As regards to the cross objection by the assessee is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee was fair enough to admit that no specific relief is sought in the said cross objection, but only the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) has been supported. Since in the former part of this order, we have dismissed the appeal of the department and the view expressed by the ld. CIT(A) has been upheld, therefore this cross objection supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) becomes infructuous. We order accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed and the cross objection by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 395
... ...
... ... ..... n the basis of circumstantial evidences.” 2. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 200506. 3. As regards question (a) is concerned, it is an admitted fact that before the ITAT the Counsel for the Revenue stated that the said issue is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Mukesh R. Marolia in Income Tax Appeal No.456/2007 decided on 7th September, 2011. Since the decision of the ITAT is based on the concession made by the Counsel for the Revenue before the ITAT, question (a) cannot be entertained. The Revenue may adopt any other remedy available in law. 4. As regards question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal in paragraph6.4 of its order has recorded the reasons on the basis of which the ITAT has arrived at a conclusion that the gifts in question are genuine. Since the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of fact, in our opinion, question (b) cannot be entertained. 5. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 393
... ...
... ... ..... mami Ltd. (supra), since the amendment has been made after filing of return, though with retrospective effect, interest under section 234C was not leviable on account of adjustment made in pursuance to the amendment. Therefore, assessee deserves to succeed on this count. 5.1. As regards the additional ground, the claim of assessee is that the capital gains arose in the last quarter and it had paid capital gains tax accordingly. Therefore, interest under section 234C apropos capital gain, could not be charged. This plea of assessee is in accordance with the proviso to section 234C(1)(b) of the Act. This aspect has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. 6. In view of above discussion, we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to compute the interest under section 234C of the Act in the light of aforementioned observations. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/ 01 /2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 388
... ...
... ... ..... lly considered the submissions of the learned DR. We have also gone through the assessment order as well as the order passed by the CIT (A). The facts stated in the order of the CIT (A) are not controverted by the revenue. Learned CIT (A) has recorded a finding that the assessee had employed the staff for carrying out its activities. The assessee has also entered into lease agreement and is paying rent and other infrastructure has also been created for setting up of the business. A finding has been recorded by learned CIT (A) that the business of the assessee was set up. No contrary material has been brought on record to assail those findings of the learned CIT (A). Therefore, having regard to all these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) vide which the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted. We decline to interfere. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 385
... ...
... ... ..... lar No.286/2/2003 dated- 10-3-2003 wherein it is stated that while recording statement during the course of search and seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Apart from above it has also been noticed that the AO has applied profit rate on shortage of the stock without examining the correct fact whether the assessee has sold raw material out of books or the assessee has sold manufactured items due to which shortage of a stock was there. Without examining such fact, merely on the basis of statement given at the time of survey which has been retracted by furnishing evidence and reconciliation we are of the considered view that under such circumstances the addition by applying profit rate on shortage of a stock cannot be made on presumption. We therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 2,03,875/- made by the AO. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13-01-2012.
........
|
