|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 687 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1272
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has further not claimed any expenditure under any head against the said income from business. The learned D.R. for the Revenue has fairly conceded that the assessee is entitled to the expenditure relatable to the earning of the business income. The total dividend income received by the assessee during the year was Rs.65,283/- on account of its investment in PMS portfolio. The said dividend income had been claimed as exempt in the hands of the assessee. In order to comply with the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow sum of Rs.5000/- being expenditure relatable to the earning of the dividend income. The present decision is applicable to the peculiar facts of the present case only and cannot be treated as a precedent. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31 st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1271
... ...
... ... ..... . Being so, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2/3 of expenditure. Before us also nothing has been furnished. However, the AR made as plea that the assessee could furnish details of foreign travel as relating to business trips as well as pleasure trips. Considering the request of the assessee's counsel, we remit the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to get bifurcation of expenditure as attributable to business trips and pleasure trips. On obtaining the information, the Assessing Officer is directed to disallow the expenditure relating to pleasure trips. If the assessee fails to furnish the same the Assessing Officer shall pass consequential order in terms of the CIT(A) order. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, ITA No. 20/Hyd/2012 is dismissed and ITA No. 1828/Hyd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1264
... ...
... ... ..... he return of income, as is apparent from the details incorporated in the assessment order. 6. The only issue arising in the present appeal is whether such belated payment of employees’ contribution to ESIC and PF, which had been made before the due date of filing the return of income are to be allowed as a deduction. We find that the issue raised is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani India Ltd.(supra). Following the above said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, CIT Vs. M/s Lakhani India Ltd.(supra) we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction 3 of Rs.1,86,799/- being the contribution made by the employees’ towards PF and ESIC, which was paid before the close of the financial year. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 4th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1263
... ...
... ... ..... s required to be made by adopting some reasonable basis as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we are of the view that reliance cannot be placed on the basis given in Rule 8D which has been held to be not applicable to the year under consideration by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, such disallowance can be reasonably worked out as some percentage of the dividend income received by the assessee on estimated basis and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be fair and reasonable to make a disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.29,150/- being 25% of the dividend income of Rs.1,16,600/- received by the assessee. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.29,150/-. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 10th day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1261
... ...
... ... ..... s) had enlarged the scope of appeals by giving a direction to split the unexplained investment on cost of construction to the period of construction. 17. In the result, we are not agreeing with the argument of learned D.R. that CIT(Appeals) had no such power to direct spreading of the unexplained portion of investment, if any, to the period of construction. 18. Nevertheless, in view of the factual situation of the case, we are setting aside the orders of authorities below and remitting the issue back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh. The A.O. has to consider the aspect of cost of construction in accordance with law and he has to give an opportunity to the assessees to explain their case and justify the cost of construction as returned by them. 19. In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well as crossobjections of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 11th of October, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1260
... ...
... ... ..... is pending, permits the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute), the same is liable to be taxed under Section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of Section 45(5) and Section 155(16) of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that even before the insertion of Section 45(5)( c) and Section 155(16) w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the receipt of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in dispute.” 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this amount is to be treated as part of compensation itself and is not to be treated as interest. Therefore, the question of law framed above does not survive any more. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court and the Assessing Officer shall proceed accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1257
... ...
... ... ..... that neither the provisions of section 41(1) can be applied nor provisions of section 68 can be applied if the credits are of earlier years. However, this aspect that the loans were received in earlier years/liabilities arose in earlier year has not been examined by either of the authorities. Therefore, for limited verification, we restore the issue to the file of AO to examine whether the credits are of this year and if so consider the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to assessee. In case the credit or liability does not belong to this year, there cannot be any addition under section 68 or under Section 41(1) as there is no cessation of liability in the impugned assessment year. With these directions, we allow the grounds with limited verification of year of receipt of the loan/liability to the file of AO and to decide accordingly. 10. In the result appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1256
... ...
... ... ..... Kavita Jha,Adv.-on-Record ORDER Delay condoned in SLP(C) No. 26151/2011. In view of order dated 22nd August, 2012 passed in CA No. 5961 of 2012, no ground is made out for our interference with the view taken by the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1255
... ...
... ... ..... ccordance with law." 7. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh and to see whether the assessee carried on the development of infrastructure facilities cumulatively with the activities of design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract executed by the assessee itself. In the event, the assessee itself carried on the development of infrastructure facilities/contract along with design, development, operation, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correction of the contract during the warranty period, then such contract to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility executed by the assessee and thereby eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 8. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1254
Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - Genuineness of sales along with the identity of the buyers was argued to be in dispute. Onus to prove was casted upon the assessee to explain the credits in the books which was duly discharged by him by presenting all details along with regular books of accounts, sale invoices, vouchers, receipt books etc. Still addition was made by AO u/s 68 on the ground that books of purchasers didn't contain any entry regarding such transactions.
HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act by considering the sale proceeds as cash credits cannot be sustained. AO has not doubted the genuineness of the purchases and when the stocks tally has been accepted by the AO then there is no reason to doubt the sales. Also, if the purchasing dealers did not account for the transaction in their books, the assessee cannot be penalised.
The decision in the case of LAKHMICHAND BAIJNATH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL [1958 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] was referred where it was held that amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as business receipts.
The expression “books” with respect to s.68 is concerned, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of SMT. SHANTA DEVI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1987 (10) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], held that such books denotes books of assessee himself and not of other parties. Addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act by considering the sale proceeds as cash credits cannot be sustained.
Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1245
... ...
... ... ..... d upon to prove the negative. In view of the amendment to Section36(i)(iv) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 takes away the condition of proving debtto be bad. The written off of amount as a bad debt is sufficient compliance. In view of amendment to Section 36(i)(iv) the Assessing Officer was not correct in insisting the assessee to prove the debt as bad. The assessee apart from doing money-lending business, he was also running the Chit Business. He has suffered huge loss in that business also and could not recover the amount. Hence, the assessee in individual capacity cannot be taxed. Since the HUF is disrupted prior to the survey, the disrupted HUF cannot be taxed. 9. We find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority. The Revenue has not made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Both the substantial questions framed in this appeal are held against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1244
... ...
... ... ..... imate expenses are required, (vi) that the books of account of the assessee have not been either rejected or found defective, (vii) no evidence was found relatable with the assessee’s case directly from the assessee or on the basis of which any estimation under s. 153C can be done, no such addition can be made. The entire addition deserves to be deleted. Therefore, we delete the entire addition made in the hands of the assessee-company in this account. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The connected grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeals, for all the years, also stand dismissed.” Respectfully following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition made for all these years. No interference is warranted. 6. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 11th of October, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... 46A of the Act. In these circumstances, we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for the remand report from the AO and decide the issue after examining the remand report of the AO and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. C.O. No. 120/Hyd/12 - by the assessee 12. Since we have set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to him to decide the same afresh in revenue’s appeal (supra), the Cross objections raised by the assessee against the very same order of the CIT(A) become infructuous, therefore, the C.O. filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 13. In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed. 14. To sum up, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the C.O. of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1240
... ...
... ... ..... ven details of profit and loss on delivery transactions at page 3 of the paper book. All the transactions are carried out through recognized Stock Exchange. The AO did not dispute the material before him and no adverse inference has been drawn. Even in the ground of appeal, the Revenue admitted that loss has occurred due to trading in shares. Therefore, the case of the assessee would fall in sub-clause (d) of the proviso to section 43(5) of the IT Act and cannot be treated as speculative transaction. The decisions cited by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) fully support the case of the assessee. In the absence of any adverse material, available on recordagainst the assessee, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee. As a result, there is no merit in the departmental appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... phold order of CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by Revenue. It is to be noted that the decision relied upon by Revenue in ground was not approved by Special Bench in the case of Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd (supra). Therefore, there is no need to consider and analyse the Coordinate Bench Decision stated in Ground No. 2. The grounds are rejected”. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal (supra) and keeping in view that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. (supra) has been approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. (supra) which is binding on us, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, rejected. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 5-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1236
... ...
... ... ..... nd in the similar circumstances, both received compensation from the very same company, namely, M/s Citadel Aurobindo Biotech Ltd. under similar agreement. In the case of Shri P. Harihara Rao, this Tribunal has already held that the amount so received from M/s Citadel Aurobindo Biotech Ltd. is capital receipt not liable to tax. The CIT/DR could not point out any distinguishing features in the instant case from the case of Shri P. Harihara Rao. Further, no material was brought before us to show that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri P. Harihara Rao was varied or stayed by any higher authority. In the circumstances, we, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri P. Harihara Rao (supra), do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 31st of October, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1234
... ...
... ... ..... nd circumstances of these appeals are pari materia with the facts of aforementioned case of M/s Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the learned DR could not controvert this fact, therefore, respectfully following the aforementioned decision of coordinate Bench, we found no merit in these departmental appeals and thus are dismissed." 5. In the opinion of this Court, the facts being virtually the same and the variation in the cost of construction being in fact lower than that in the main case i.e. CIT v. M/s. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., no fault can be found with the Tribunal's reasoning in the orders impugned in the present appeals pertaining to the three assessees, i.e., M/s Ambience Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Ambience Projects & Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Ambience Hotels & Resorts Ltd. 6. Consequently, following this Court's previous judgment dated 27.07.2012 in ITA Nos.195-199 and 203/2012, the present appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1233
... ...
... ... ..... s own decision rendered in the case of Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, the facts in the present case are materially different and it is not possible to hold in the present case that the assessee was the beneficiary owner of the shares held by its two directors in Karnataka Automats Pvt. Ltd. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra) will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in Karnataka Automats Pvt. Ltd., the deeming provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. We therefore hold that the addition made by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is therefore directed to be deleted. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1232
... ...
... ... ..... 0) of the Act in respect of its Millennium project despite the assessee not satisfying the conditions stipulated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act? This Court in ITA No.763/2009 c/w ITA No.25/2009 (DD29.2.2012) has answered the said question of law against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1231
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the assessee against the block assessment order and the addition made by the AO by restricting the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB was deleted. Since the said order of the learned CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue was not challenged by the Revenue and had become final, the Tribunal accepted the basis of allocation adopted by the assessee and decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of the earlier years decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11th Sept., 2009, we respectfully follow the said order and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue. 13. In the result, the appeals for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are dismissed whereas the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of Oct. , 2012.
........
|
