|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 190 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 210 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... hereinabove it is manifest that the appellant continued to carry on the business and did not stop. In the immediately succeeding year itself it has made export to the tune of ₹ 20.35 crores. The year under appeal was only a period of full & dormancy. I am therefore of the considered view that the expenditure for maintaining the establishment and other misc. expenses were incurred for the purpose of business and are allowable deduction u/s.37(1). The court decisions cited by the ld.A/R also support such view. The disallowance of expenses made by the AO is deleted. Ground No. 3 is allowed.”. Since the facts are identical in assessee’s sister concern case, respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal, we confirm the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-01-2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 209 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... that re-assessment completed without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is to be set aside. • ACIT v Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC); • CIT v M Chellappan and another 281 ITR 444; • Kuber Tobacco Products P. Ltd. v DCIT 310 ITR (AT) 300 (Del.)(SB); • Arun Lal v ACIT 1 ITR (Trib.) 1 (Agra) & • ITO v R K Gupta 308 ITR (AT) 49 (Del.) 8.4 Before parting, it is to be mentioned that if the revenue is to bring on record any material to suggest that there has been service of notice under section 143(2) on the assessee as contemplated under law; needless to say, appropriate curative steps could be taken by the revenue. 8.5 Since we have decided the jurisdictional issue in favour of the assessee and have cancelled the assessment, the other grounds raised on merits are not adjudicated upon. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th day of January, 2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 208 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 10A deuction - Held that:- Telecommunication charges and foreign exchange loss are to be excluded not only from total turnover but also from export turnover in computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
-
2012 (1) TMI 207 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... visions of section 50C. In support of this contention the assessee has filed a report of DVO obtained in case of purchaser who has valued the property at ₹ 32,01,100/- and impugned addition was made in the hands of purchaser by the AO and the same has been deleted by ld. CIT (A). Therefore, for this reason also it can be said that addition made by AO which is confirmed by ld. CIT (A) was not justified. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that addition made in the hands of assessee by invoking provisions of section 50C which is confirmed by ld. CIT (A) was not justified and accordingly the impugned addition made and confirmed is hereby deleted. 16. Since we have already deleted the addition on merit, therefore, we are not inclined to dispose off the legal ground against initiation of proceedings under section 148 at this point of time. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 18. The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 206 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... address. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the identity of the share applicant have been established. The other documents on the basis of which the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted the relief have not been the subject matter of scrutiny and examination by the Assessing Officer. It is also not the case that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has himself verified these documents. We further find that the share in this case have been issued at premium of Rs. 40 per share, this aspect has not been examined by the authorities below. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, interest of justice will served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. Hence, the matter stands remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/1/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 203 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... religious purposes in the earlier year against income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(1) of the Act. 5. It is candidly pointed out by the learned senior counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt that recently Delhi High Court's judgement in case of Raghvanshi Charitable Trust and others Vs. DIT reported in (2011) 221 Taxation 250 decided on 27th July, 2010, also decided the issue on similar line. Question having been concluded by this Court and with no other material aspect being brought to the notice of the Court for making any interference in the decision of Tribunal, this Tax Appeal requires no meritorious consideration. Hence, Tax Appeal is dismissed No costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 202 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... and finally posted for hearing on 19.1.2012. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, opposed grant of extension of stay. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has made out prima facie case for grant of extension of stay and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to grant extension of stay for further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. It is ordered accordingly. It is to be noted that the stay is extended beyond 365 days. However, it is to be mentioned that delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee and hence, in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ronuk Industries Ltd. 333 ITR 99 and the order of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Tata Communications Ltd. V ACIT 9 ITR (Trib) 1, the stay is extended beyond the period of 365 days. 5. In the result, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 196 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... revenue. The decision of Hyderabd Bench is reported at 129 TTJ (UO) 57, Teja Construction co. Vs. ACIT. The ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Singhal Builders Contractors Vs. Addl. CIT 133 TTJ (UO) 102 held that no disallowance u/s 40a(ia) cannot be made in case books of accounts have been rejected. We have also gone through the case laws on which the ld. DR has relied upon. We agree with the views of the ld. DR that order is erroneous if the AO has not made any enquiry. We had already discussed that the AO has made enquiry and it is not a case where the AO has not considered the issue on which the ld. CIT has passed the order u/s 263 of the Act. We therefore, feel that the ld. CIT was not justified in setting the order with the direction to the AO to examine the issue as mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT. In view of above discussions, the order of the ld. CIT is cancelled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 195 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... sum of ₹ 61,000/- could, in the circumstances of the case, have been assessed as undisclosed profits. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been misconstrued in isolation and without reference to the context and entirety of the facts of that case. The cross-examination of the person who filed affidavits is one of the reasons’ for the finding arrived at by the Hon'ble Apex Court, alongwith other reasons. Consequently, the ratio of the decision concluded and relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the case. 14. Having regard to the legal and factual discussion, we are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to adduce corroborative documentary evidence to the factum of incurring the said expenditure and hence, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. This ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th Jan., 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 190 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tal asset within the meaning of sec. 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since no material has been brought on record by the AO to support his contention that the impugned lands were situated within the 8 kms from the outer limits of Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon, in our considered opinion, the profits arising on sale of such lands would not constitute capital asset. Since the nature of land was not doubted by the AO, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned CIT-DR that the matter should be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for verification of the fact whether the lands were agricultural in nature or not. In view of above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) allowing the relief to both the assessees in both the assessment years. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in both the cases for both the Assessment Years are dismissed. 9. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 31st January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 186 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... assessee, we notice that the assessee has made deposits in round sums on various dates ranging from ₹ 5,000/- to ₹ 90,000/-. Though the sister of the assessee has filed confirmation letter by stating that she has agreed to sponsor the educational expenses of the assessee’s daughter, she has not given the details of amount actually remitted by her in this regard, in the absence of which the said letter loses its credibility. The reason given for routing the said payment through another brother of the assessee is also not convincing. The explanation of the assessee that his brother had taken money from him on earlier occasions is also not supported with any evidence. In these circumstances, in our view also, the explanations offered by the assessee are not convincing. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld CIT(A) on this issue also. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 6.1.12
-
2012 (1) TMI 185 - SC ORDER
Additions under section 68 - assessee obtained 25 advance licenses from DGFT under DEEC scheme for duty free imports, has grossly over invoiced export of CD ROMs to show its export obligations as having been fulfilled. It was alleged in the aforesaid report that the assessee had partly sold a few of these licenses to various importers for duty free imports - ITAT confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting additions.
-
2012 (1) TMI 173 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... 010 order dated 11-02-2011. A similar view was also taken by the Gujarat High Court also in the case of Khandubhai Vasanji Desai & Ors vs DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 73 (Guj). The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in Assist.Commissioner of Income-tax vs Smt. Cicy P Thomas in ITSS No.32/Coch/2007 and CO No.37/coch/2007 order dated 22-12-2011. 7. In view of the above, in our opinion, the block assessment order passed against the assessee u/s 158BD is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the same is quashed.” 6. In consistent with the view taken in the above cited case, we hold that the block assessment order passed in the hands of the assessee u/s. 158BD is time barred by limitation. Accordingly, we quash the same. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee, we do not fit it necessary to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 6.1.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... se of C.I.T. vs. Goodyear India Ltd. 249 ITR 527. 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. 10. We find that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. C.I.T. & Ors. 280 ITR 643 had held that “assessee was entitled to compensation by way of interest under section 214 and section 244 for the delay in payment interest u/s 214 and 244 lawfully due to the assessee which were withheld wrongly and contrary to law by the department for inordinate long period.” In our considered opinion, the ratio from this case law is rightly applicable on the facts of the case. The above said CBDT instruction No. 2-2007, dated 28.3.2007 is also germane in this regard. Hence, in our considered opinion, the assessee is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of interest and accordingly the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/1/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 167 - ITAT KOLKATA
TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds on payment for hiring of lorry/trucks and labour - contractual relationship - Held that:- In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of United Rice Land Ltd. (2008 (5) TMI 142 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ), the provisions of section 194C were not applicable. It is not disputed that the assessee had not assigned any of its contractual obligations to the transporters. It was a mere case of hiring the trucks from the market as per the requirements and not as per any contract. Appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 163 - ITAT JODHPUR
Exemption u/s 11 - JDA entitlement for registration - seek for registration under s. 12A/12AA. - Held that:- In case the authority has not complied with the provision of s. 11(4) of the Act then perhaps exemption under s. 11 may not be applicable. However, for the purpose of registration, we feel that JDA is entitled for registration. We had already noticed that Tribunal, Jaipur Bench has allowed the registration in the case of Jaipur Development Authority. Accordingly, we direct the learned CIT to allow registration under s. 12AA of the Act. Sub-cl. (a) of s. 12A requires that application of registration should be filed within one year from the date of creation of the trust. In case the same is filed before 1st June, 2007 then the first proviso to s. 12A(a) permitted the learned CIT to condone the delay. However, the first proviso to s. 12A(a) is not applicable for the application made on or after 1st June, 2007. Hence, the learned CIT can allow the registration from first year of the financial year in which the application is made. Hence registration, if any, to be allowed will be from the first day of financial year in which application is made or from the date of creation of trust whichever is later.
-
2012 (1) TMI 104 - ITAT CHENNAI
Non-compete fee agreement - Held that:- We are not in agreement with the arguments of the assessee that non-compete fee is an intangible asset to which provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act are applicable. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the depreciation cannot be allowed on amount of non-compete fee. We accordingly dismiss this contention of the assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 103 - ITAT CHENNAI
Capital expenditure vis-a-vis revenue expenditure - nature of expenditure - replacement cost - assessee has replaced the mechanical yarn clearers with the electronic yarn clearer - Held that:- The replacement has not increased the volume of production of the assessee-company. Strictly speaking, the yarn clearers do not directly take part in deciding the quantum of production. The yarn clearers make the yarn compatible for further treatment. Therefore, yarn clearer is a servicing system within the manufacturing operation carried out by the assessee-company. Therefore, it comes under the category of current repairs, as if a fused bulb is replaced by a new electric bulb. The existing situation is protected and no new benefit is created.
Entitlement to be deducted under section 80-IA - captive consumption of power generated - Held that:- Captive consumption of the power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the respondent/ assessee to drive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption of power inasmuch as the assessee is able to save to that extent which would certainly be covered by section 80-IA(1). When such will be the outcome out of own consumption of the power generated and gained by the assessee by setting up its own power plant, we do not find any lack of merit in the claim of the respondent/assessee when it claimed by relying upon section 80-IA(1) of the Income-tax Act by way of deduction of the value of such units of power consumed by its own plant by way of profit and gains for the relevant assessment years.
-
2012 (1) TMI 102 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... it is an established rule that ignorance of law is not an excuse, in the facts of the present case, where the assessee had bona fide acted on the advice of his counsel in respect of issue of claim of exemption under particular provisions of the Act and which are at variance even under the same chapter, where the assessee had so acted, the claim of the assessee can at best be called a bona fide mistake. There is no merit in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of such bona fide mistake made by the assessee, which was not mala fide. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 101 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... see not by its will and pleasure. The intervention of the Government made it impossible to import kerosene oil and consequently there was no occasion to utilise the facility. These are all the normal risks of a business carried on by any businessman. Because of the above risk, the assessee has lost the sum of Rs. 20,36,160. This is a loss incurred in the course of carrying on the business. Therefore, this is deductible under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the lower authorities have erred in not deducting Rs. 20,36,160 while computing the taxable income of the assessee-company. The contention of the assessee is accepted and the assessing authority is directed to revise the computation of taxable income after deducting the sum of Rs. 20,36,160. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 12th January, 2012 at Chennai.
....
|
