|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 190 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 384
... ...
... ... ..... he objections of the assessee, the AO is directed to pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Before conclusion, it is worth to mention that the assessee had raised grounds challenging the quantum addition, however, since the issue on jurisdiction has been restored back and that legal issue is to be settled first therefore at present at this stage it is not viable to decide these grounds as it was suggested in the case of Rahulkumar Bajaj v. ITO (1999) 69 ITD 1 (SB) (Nag). The other grounds are not accordingly being decided and the matter is sent to the file of AO who will decide the other issues de novo after passing a speaking order as directed above but by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 381
... ...
... ... ..... der the provisions of the IT Act for the assessment year 1998-99 and that being worked back etc. 47. Therefore, while we are not called upon to examine either the scope of the charging section or the nature of the transaction per se insofar as the assessee is concerned in the present appeals as such questions did not arise and the Tribunal having bestowed its attention only on the question of the reopened assessments being bad either as barred by limitation or by change of opinion and that alone is to be examined and that question having been answered, we do not propose to go into the details of other submissions and it 13 therefore we do not propose to discuss further on the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the assessee with regard to chargeability of the amount involved in the hire purchase transaction and the nature of the hire purchase transaction. 48. In the result, these appeals are allowed. However, parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 380
... ...
... ... ..... quo;charitable purpose” is intended to mean. We are certain that these observations were not intended to keep out of the meaning of the word “education”, persons other than “young”. The expression “schooling” also mean “that school instructs or educates”. The Supreme Court has observed that the word “education” also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. This clearly indicates that the observations of the Supreme Court were not intended to give a narrow or pedantic sense to the word”education”. 11. In view of the above, finding no error whatsoever in the order of the ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby confirmed, rejecting the grievance sought to be raised by the Department, finding the same to be shorn of merit, in view of the aforesaid decision. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 379
... ...
... ... ..... e, which was carrying on the business of manufacturing, selling and distribution of pharmaceutical and medical preparations, received during the assessment year 199798 ₹ 50 lakhs from Ranbaxy as non-competition fee. It agreed to transfer its trade marks to Ranbaxy and in consideration for such transfer the assessee agreed that it shall not carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it. The agreement was for 20 years. The Tribunal held that the amount was a capital receipt; but the High Court reversed the decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that prior to April 1, 2003, when Parliament stepped in to specifically tax such receipts, the payment was in the nature of a capital receipt.” 4.1. Respectfully following the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we hereby affirm the findings of ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 5. In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 377
... ...
... ... ..... or assessment year 2006-07 relating to the deletion of addition on account of prior period expenses. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the disallowance of ₹ 1,65,974/- has to go back to the file of ld. A.O. for proper adjudication on merits and in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and remand the matter to the file of ld. A.O. to decide the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to justify the claim with relevant sufficient material to the satisfaction of the ld. A.O. Hence the second issue for assessment year 2006-07 is to be treated as alloweod for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and that for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/1/2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 375
... ...
... ... ..... onsideration. The issue whether deduction under sec. 54EC was available or not, in Assessment Year 2005-06 is not before us. The assessee has invested borrowed funds in acquisition of bonds and has earned interest thereon. Therefore, the interest payable on borrowed capital has to be allowed as deduction of interest earned on such investments. From the assessment order, it is not clear as to how much amount of interest was earned on the bonds purchased from funds borrowed at ₹ 6,42,80,000/-. Deduction of interest under sec. 57(iii) is to be restricted to the extent of interest earned on bonds acquired out of borrowed funds. We therefore, hold that the assessee will be eligible for deduction of interest out of interest earned on such investment. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify and allow the claim of the assessee accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 25th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 373
... ...
... ... ..... has power to cancel the registration granted u/s.12AA(1) of IT Act. In the above cited decision of Ahmedabad Urban Development(supra), it was held that when under the Act a specific provision for cancellation of registration is prescribed and the cancellation is possible under specific condition then fulfillment of those conditions are necessary for invoking the jurisdiction u/s.12AA(3). In the present case the reason for cancellation for registration was that the definition of charitable purpose u/s.2(15) has been amended therefore the assessee has not carried out the activity as per the definition of “charitable purposes”. This very issue has already been dealt with by the Respected Benches, therefore respectfully following these decisions we hereby reverse the view taken by the ld.Commissioner and direct not to cancel the registration u/s.12AA(3) of IT Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. 5. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 372
... ...
... ... ..... usiness profit even during the period assessee enjoys exemption under section 10B(4). In view of the above findings, the appeals are to be allowed by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and by restoring the order issued by the Commissioner under section 263 of the first four years and by upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2005-06 Para 5 .” From the above, it is clear that section 10B(4) itself refers to “total income” which would mean “income of all units put together”. It is settled law that if a decision of High Court is available, then the decision of Tribunal, even if that is of Special Bench, cannot override the same. Since the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and therefore following the same, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 27th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 371
... ...
... ... ..... assessee out of the business transactions but the same was rejected by the authorities below as well as the Tribunal and addition was confirmed. We find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that merely because the plea of the assessee has been rejected that may not automatically attract the penal consequences, more particularly under sec. 271(1)(c). We find that ‘deemed dividend’ is a legal fiction created u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. The amount would partakes character of the dividend and same can be brought to tax as deemed dividend. In our opinion, this is not fit case where it can be said that the assessee has concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Given our anxious consideration to the finding of the CIT (A), in our opinion, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CI T (A) is confirmed. 4. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 31st January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 370
... ...
... ... ..... /2010, similar issue relating to assessee’s claim under section 80HHC of the Act in respect of certain other items of income, has been considered by us vide para 16 above, wherein we have extracted the findings of our co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 30.11.2010 (supra) regarding exclusion of service charges from the profits of business as per Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. Following the said precedent as the circumstances are identical in this year, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remit the matter back to his file to be adjudicated afresh in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. (supra) and Dresser Rand India P Ltd. ITA No 2186 of 2009 (HC). We hold so. As a result, Ground No. 9 of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 48. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed, as above. Decision pronounced in the open Court on this 31st Day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 369
|
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - AO found that the assessee purchased a property for which he passed some amount from the regular sources and the balance amount had been paid from unexplained sources, as during the survey, unsigned draft agreements were found. Also, no revised agreements were found at premises of assessee's company.
HELD THAT:- ld. CIT (A) held that the AO was not right in making impugned addition of the amount in question on the basis of unsigned and undated draft agreement and without bringing any corroborative evidence on record. We found that the agreements and the revised agreement cannot be denied merely for the reason that they were not found during the course of survey at the premises of assessee's company. The assessee claims that the same were there at his residence. The assessee's statements were not recorded during the course of survey otherwise he could have explained the complete facts at that time itself. Further, these agreement are written on the stamp papers issued prior to the date of transactions. No evidence is there on record showing the balance payment of sum by the assessee or his family members. The amount remaining to be paid in terms of the draft agreement also remained payable in terms of the signed agreement but the terms were subsequently revised and payment was made as per the revised terms.
In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given a well reasoned and well founded order after dealing with each and every aspect of the issue and we are in full agreement with the findings of the CIT(A) that the addition of balance amount made by applying the provisions of section 69 is not justified. We therefore, confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) - Decision in favour of Assessee.
|
-
2012 (1) TMI 367
... ...
... ... ..... ld. A.R. that on similar facts in other years penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has not been initiated. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied upon the order of AO. 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties, record perused. We find that the CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Apex Court and others. The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Moideen Kutty Haji (supra) has clearly held that in such cases, penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) is not leviable when the AO during the assessment proceeding accepted the additional income of the assessee. Because assessment was completed on the basis of agreed addition and not on the basis of concealed income found by the AO on the basis of examination by him. Following the above judgment of Kerala High Court and in n the light of the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) is confirmed. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-01-2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 366
... ...
... ... ..... aa). 3. These amendments were made by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1998. 4. In view of the aforesaid amendment, we feel that the matter should be considered and decided by the tribunal afresh as it requires factual examination and details. Accordingly, we answer the question of law mentioned above by directing the tribunal to decide the aspect/issue afresh in view of the retrospective amendment. The order passed by the tribunal deciding the question/issue will be treated as set aside. In the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 5. Parties will appear before the Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 12th March, 2012, when a date of hearing will be fixed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 361
... ...
... ... ..... sed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return.” The Commissioner of Income-tax(A) disposed off the appeal without referring to Second Proviso to section 158BFA(2). This Tribunal is of the opinion that the Second Proviso to section 158BFA(2) needs to be taken into consideration while disposing of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax(A). Accordingly the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A). The Commissioner of Income-tax(A) shall reconsider the issue afresh in the light of Second Proviso to section 158BFA(2) and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. 15. In the result, appeal in IT(SS)A No.214/Coch/2005 is dismissed and appeal in IT(SS)A No.02/Coch/2006 is allowed, for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 360
... ...
... ... ..... his power mentioned in section 250 (4) of the Act, which provides that the CIT(A) may remand the case to the A.O. and call for the remand report on the assessment on certain points. Hence, there is no violation of Rule 46-A. Needless to mention that the power of the Appellate Commissioner is co-terminus with the power of the Assessee Officer. Appellate authority has all the powers, which the original authority has subject to condition/restriction, if any, prescribed by law as per the ratio laid down in the following cases 1. Jute Corp. of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688,693 SC; and 2. CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram, (1997) 224 ITR 610 (SC). In view of above, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. The appeal filed by the department has no merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2012 (1) TMI 359
... ...
... ... ..... 271(1)(c) there is a duty placed on the assessee to reply to the penalty notice and to give the plausible explanation. Once this is done, the duty shifts to the Assessing Officer to show that the explanation given by the assessee is false. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clear on this issue insofar as it specifically uses the term “fails to offer an explanation” and the term “offers an explanation which is found to be false” as also the term “explanation which he is not able to substantiate”. Here the assessee has given an explanation. The explanation is substantiated by evidences. The explanation has not been shown to be false. In the circumstances, penalty is not leviable. In the circumstances, the order of the learned CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act stands reversed. In the circumstances the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 31/01/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 357
... ...
... ... ..... , relying on the decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 200304 which is not accepted by the revenue ?” 2. Counsel for the parties state that similar question raised in the assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal (L) No.87 of 2011 in the case of CIT Vs. A.F. Ferguson & Co. has been rejected by this Court on 21.7.2011. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 356
... ...
... ... ..... r three years from the date of completion of the assessment in respect of the person against whom search was carried out is barred by limitation. A similar view was taken by Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT, Cir. Vs Shri P Venkata Ramana in ITSSA No.08/HYD/2010 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 Incometax 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. 8. In the result, the revenue appeals are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 06th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 354
... ...
... ... ..... this issue, and direct the assessing officer to recompute the capital gains. 9. As for the disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 1,38,112, in view of the pleading of the assessee before us that it should have been allowed under the head ‘business income itself, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this aspect, and restore the matter to lthe file fo the assessing officer, with a direction to verify the details of the expenditure of ₹ 1,38,112, and allow the same against business income of the assessee, if the assessee is able to substantiate its claim that the expenditure in question is relatable to the business income itself, by producing evidence to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The assessing officer is accordingly directed to redecide this issue in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 25.1.2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 351
... ...
... ... ..... 798 to 19992000 is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as applicable for A.Y. 199798 to 19992000 or the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the said provisions as applicable to A.Y. 200304 and 200405 ?”
........
|
