|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 190 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 348
... ...
... ... ..... sment, after expiry of four years is invalid in law. In this case also admittedly, the assessment was reopened after expiry of four years. In view of the above, in our opinion, the was no negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing full material which is relevant for completing the assessment. Therefore, in view of Proviso to section 147, the reopening of assessment after four years is invalid in law. Accordingly we hold that the reopening of assessment is invalid. Consequently the reassessment proceedings has no leg to stand. Accordingly we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income-tax(A) for the reasons stated above. 6. In view o the above, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to go into the merit of the appeal filed by the department. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 346
... ...
... ... ..... ong term capital gain. Though it is an established rule that ignorance of law is not an excuse, but in the facts of the present case, where the assessee had bonafidely 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 bonafide mistake. There is no merit in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of such bonafide mistake made by the assessee, which was not malafide. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the aforesaid penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 10.In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of January,2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 345
... ...
... ... ..... tion. By virtue of clause (f) and (ii) to Explanation 1, the Assessing Officer could not have reworked the depreciation computed by the respondent assessee in the books of accounts maintained under the Companies Act, 1956. 9. It may be noted here that the only addition made by the Assessing Officer in the present case was on account of change of method of depreciation from straight line method, which was the method adopted by the respondent assessee in the books of accounts maintained under the Companies Act, 1956. The Assessing Officer adopted and applied the written down value method, which is the method specified under Section 32 of the Act. This is not permissible in view of the limited mandate and stipulation in Explanation 1. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, we have to hold that the order passed by the tribunal does not require interference and accordingly we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 343
Denied benefit of the provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2) - Held that:- This is not in accordance with the pronounced decisions of various Benches including that of Pune. In effect, the demand relatable to this issue becomes clearly irrecoverable demand. We have also considered assessee's readiness to pay some tax and on considering assessee's capacity to pay and the requirements of Government of India, we are of the opinion that the assessee must pay 50% of the clear disputed demand (after excluding the demand related to the 5% plus or minus and also excluding the statutory interest segment thereof) which may be somewhere around ₹ 2 crores.
Thus, the assessee is required to pay sum of ₹ 1 crore now for becoming entitled to the stay of demand conditionally. Considering the difficulties narrated by the learned counsel to pay the said demand in one go, we direct the assessee to pay the same in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should be paid at the end of this month i.e. January, 2012. We also consider the assessee's request for early hearing and the same is acceded to. Thus the case is posted for hearing on 23rd February, 2012 as pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 341
... ...
... ... ..... ch the assessee is operating and the Revenue is having enough safeguard to make such examination from year to year at the time of assessment. Any contravention of the provision in future can well be considered in assessment proceedings. 8. Therefore, while the eligibility of the assessee for registration under sec.12AA is examined in the light of declared objects of the assessee-society, we find no reason why registration should not be granted. In the light of the judicial pronouncements discussed above, we find that the assesseesociety is entitled for the registration under sec.12AA. 9. The Director (Exemptions) is accordingly, directed to grant registration to the assessee-society under sec.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 10. As the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, the stay petition becomes infructuous and therefore liable to be rejected. 11. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 11th of January, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (1) TMI 337
... ...
... ... ..... ty of grapes is black grapes and they were claimed to have been sold as it is. The selling rate of said variety is shown in the range of ₹ 77.50 to ₹ 93 per kg., as against ₹ 15/- stated by APMC. In view of the above, we are of the view that the accounts maintained by the assessee for agricultural activities suffer from certain defects. Accordingly, in our view, the agricultural income declared by the assessee deserves reduction. On a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the agricultural income derived from grapes may be reduced by ₹ 8.00 lakhs to take care of the defects and in our view the same would meet the ends of justice. We modify the order of Ld CIT(A) accordingly and the AO is directed to consider ₹ 8.00 lakhs as income under the head “Income from other sources” out of the agricultural income declared by the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on
-
2012 (1) TMI 336
... ...
... ... ..... always be entertained in appellate proceedings. Pitted against the cause of substantial justice vis-à-vis technical considerations, the cause of substantial justice should prevail It is true that scope of appellate jurisdiction is confined to the issues arising out of impugned order, but if a legal issue comes into operation at appellate proceedings stage only, for which no fresh scrutiny of facts is required, then the legal claim can be entertained by appellate authority particularly, when he has co- terminous powers with the authority passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and allow the ground no.2 raised by the assessee. 8. The other grounds raised by the assessee before us are on merit and, therefore, need no adjudication as the entire income earned by assessee was exempt from tax. 9. In the result , the appeal of the asses see is al lowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 331
... ...
... ... ..... rsquo;s contributions to premium disallowed in years of payment on ground that Assessee had control over disposal of funds - Amendment of Rules of Plan leaving no control with Assessee and making amounts due under Policies payable to employees - Amounts earlier disallowed - Allowable in year in which Amendment was effected as outgoing of that year - Indian Income Tax Act 1922, s.10(2)(xv), (4)(c ).” Both the cases can be applied to hold that the liability which was sought to be discharged by taking insurance policy and the premium having been paid in this regard, the premium payable/paid is eligible for deduction while computing the income from business. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,10,00,000/-.” 3.1 Following the aforesaid decision, it is held that the assessee was entitled to deduct the amount of ₹ 30 lakh in computing its total income. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Pronounced in the Open Court on 11th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 330
... ...
... ... ..... same afresh in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal (supra) and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.5029/Mum/2007 7. At the time of hearing, both the parties have agreed that the facts of the present case and ground taken by the Revenue are similar to the case of Mrs.Deepali J Shah, therefore, the plea taken by them in the said appeal may be considered while deciding the present appeal. 8. That being so and in the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the parties, we direct the AO to follow our findings recorded in paragraph 6 of this order. We hold and order accordingly. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Jan., 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 329
... ...
... ... ..... te order rejecting the assessee’s contention in this regard. Following the view taken hereinabove, we decide this issue against the assessee. 3. The other appeal is for A.Y. 2003-04 which has been filed by the Revenue arising out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 15-01-2007. 4. It is common submission from both the sides that apart from filing this appeal in ITA No.2642/Mum/2007, the Revenue also filed another appeal which has been marked as ITA No.2702/Mum/2007 with identical grounds and from the same order of ld. CIT(A). In other words, it was accepted that it is a duplicate appeal having been filed by the Revenue. Since the other appeal is already pending adjudication, there is no point in keeping both the appeals alive. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as having been filed in duplicate. 5. In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2003-04 is dismissed and that for assessment year 2002-03 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 18th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 327
... ...
... ... ..... of depreciation on vehicle i.e. car is to be disallowed u/s 38(2) of the Act. 44.1 The 11th ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition on account of disallowance of vehicle expenses to ₹ 7,500/-. 45.1 After hearing both the parties, we feel that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to ₹ 7,500/-. 46.1 The 12th ground of appeal of the Department is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restoring back the mater for verification of addition on account of excess depreciation on truck of ₹ 2,71,124/-. 46.2 We have heard both the parties. Since the ld. CIT(A) has restored back the matter, therefore, we don’t feel to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We confirm the ld. CIT(A)’s order in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO. 47 In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed The order is pronounced in the open Court on 13-01-2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 324
... ...
... ... ..... ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We find that no error could be pointed out by the ld. DR in the above quoted order of the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee is entitled for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation allowance available during the assessment year 1997-98 to the assessment year 2003- 04 and claimed the same as set off against the income of the assessment year 2003-04 by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. S & S Power Switchgear Ltd. (218 CTR 701)(Mad). Hence, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed. The ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. No other point has been urged by the Revenue except the above point. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced at the close of the hearing in the presence of the parties on 18.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 321
... ...
... ... ..... of both the issues to the file of Assessing Officer and he conceded the position that assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the Act and even CIT(A) has relied on some wrong conclusion. 4. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, as both issues were adjudicated by lower authorities without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee as is evident from the orders, we set aside these issues to the file of Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate afresh. In respect to commission expenses, the assessee will file documentary evidences to substantiate its claim of expenses and Assessing Officer will decide on the basis of evidences as per law. In respect to share application money, the Assessing Officer will decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration the evidences filed by assessee in terms of law. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in open court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 320
Unexplained investment under section 69 - sale of the shares - penny stocks - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia [2011 (9) TMI 919 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has been dismissed.
HC held it is neither the case of the Revenue that the shares in question are still lying with the Assessee nor it is the case of the Revenue that the amounts received by the Assessee on sale of the shares is more than what is declared by the Assessee. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of the Director of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. regarding the sale transaction, the Tribunal relying on the statement of the employee of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. held that the sale transaction was genuine. ITAT is correct in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount as unexplained investment under Section 69 cannot be faulted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 317
... ...
... ... ..... ourt in the case of S.A. Builders (supra), the expression ‘commercial expediency’ is of wide import and even advances for the purpose of business of the sister concern are required to be treated as for business purposes. The Assessing officer was thus clearly in error in resorting to the disallowance on the short ground that while the assessee has borrowed the money on interest, it has given an interest free advance to the sister concern. That approach certainly constitute a very superficial view of the matter, and the CIT(A) was justified in reversing the disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer. We approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” 5 Therefore, following the order for the earlier year of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6 In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 11th, day of Jan 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 313
Contribution for Compensatory Afforestation - Captial or Revenue Expenditure - Allowable u/s 37(1) or not? - The respondent had paid some amount towards contribution for compensatory afforestation. The assessee relying upon decision of Supreme Court, contended that this is an expenditure incurred for the purposes of business and allowable u/S 37(1).
According to AO -The assessee was permitted to carry out mining activity for the year under consideration only in the already broken up area out of total area and remaining area was undisturbed. As per the Mining Plan the assessee will first carry out mining only in Block A. Which will last for about 7 years and then block B will be taken up for mining activity. Hence the entire payment cannot be said to be an expenditure for the said financial year. Accordingly the said amount of expenditure is restricted to 1/14th
HELD THAT- CIT (A) while confirming the order of assessing authority said that the funds are used for a natural regeneration which the assessee participates indirectly. Therefore at no point of time could it be said that the assessee had incurred a capital expenditure giving the assessee a benefit of enduring nature for the purpose of earning segmented income to render the same to income tax. The amount was incurred as a revenue expenditure and is directed to be allowed in the year it has been incurred.
We, therefore, held that It is not in dispute that the said payment was made as contribution for compensatory afforestation as per the directions of the Supreme Court. It is not permissible for the assessee to make phase-wise payment. Order of CIT is thus sound and proper - Decision against Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 311
Royalty and Fees for Technical Services u/s 9 - Double Taxation Relief u/s 90 - Assessee has derived income from providing telecommunication services to various customers in India as well as outside India. The AO treated income from Indian customers as royalty and held that such payments are taxable.
HELD THAT:- Facts are similar in the own case of M/S INTELSAT CORPORATION, C/O S.R. BATLIBOI & CO. VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), NEW DELHI [2011 (3) TMI 1707 - ITAT DELHI], where it was held that, assessee is a tax resident of USA and, therefore, the provisions contained in the DTAA are applicable. However, there is no need to go into the provisions of the DTAA because of the provision contained in Section 90(2) of the Act. This provision provides that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall applied to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee. It has to be granted the benefit of the Act under which no liability to tax can be fastened on the assessee. This decision was further confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION VERSUS INTELSAT CORPORATION [2011 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
Thus, income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be exigible to tax in India - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 310
... ...
... ... ..... pondent. 4. This Court had earlier issued notice for final hearing. Both the learned advocates for the parties have taken this Court through the various documents and the orders passed by all the three adjudicating authorities. Learned counsel, when apparently questioned with regard to the legal issue involved in the matter, has fairly pointed out the discussion made by the Tribunal based on the order of the CIT(Appeals). This Court in a cognate matter being Tax Appeal No.1042 of 2009 has upheld order of remand. Considering the entire gamut of facts and the reasons as well as discussion of the Tribunal, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no error or perversity in the order of Tribunal of remand and as the matter is decided basing essentially on the facts and applying concerned provisions appropriately with no question of law arising for the determination of this Court, resultantly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.” In the result Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 309
Deduction u/s 80IA - eligible business - Held that:- In Section 80IA(8) of the Act what is required to be ascertained is the market value of the goods transferred by the eligible business, when such transfer is by eligible business to another non eligible business of the same assessee and the consideration recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to market value of such goods. Term “Market Value” is further explained in explanation to said subsection to mean in relation to any goods or services, price that such goods or services will ordinarily fetch in the open market. To our mind sum of ₹ 4.51 per unit of electricity only represented cost of electricity generation to the assessee and not the market value thereof. It is not in dispute that the GEB charged ₹ 5 per unit for supplying electricity to other industries including non eligible unit of the assessee itself.
Tribunal therefore, while adopting the said base figure and excluding excise duty therefrom to work out ₹ 4.90 as the market value of the electricity generated by the assessee, to our mind, committed no error. It can be easily seen that if the assessee were to supply such electricity or was allowed to do so in the open market, surely it would not fetch ₹ 4.51 per unit but ₹ 5 per unit as was being charged by GEB. Since the excise duty component thereof would not be retained by the assessee, Tribunal reduced the said figure by the nature of excise duty and came to the figure of ₹ 4.90 to ascertain the market value of electricity generated by the eligible unit and supplied to non eligible business of the assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 308
Treating the rent received from letting/renting of shops/offices in the commercial complex as well as from letting/renting of space on roof and space on walls for advertisement - ‘Income from business’ OR ‘Income from house property’ - denying deduction claimed under section 24(a) of the Act being 30% of annual value - Held that:- In the present case undisputedly the properties are not rented out temporarily or for a short period and, therefore, in our considered view, there was no reason to hold that this is a business income and not income from house property. Accordingly, we hold that AO and ld. CIT (A) were not justified in holding that income of the building was income from business and not from house property. Accordingly, we allow the ground of the assessee and the AO is directed to allow deduction as per provisions of law applicable under the head Income from house property.
........
|
