|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... econd question raised by the Revenue relates to allowing the expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the partly convertible debentures. According to the Revenue, the expenses relating to convertible debentures are capital in nature and, hence, disallowable. 5. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Incometax V/s. Secure Meters Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 611 (Raj.) after considering various decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income tax reported in 225 ITR 798 (S.C.) has held that the debentures when issued as convertible or nonconvertible is a loan allowable as revenue expenditure. Admittedly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the said decision has been dismissed by the Apex Court on 11th August 2009. In this view of the matter, the second question raised by the Revenue cannot be entertained. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1167 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Additions based on statement during Survey Proceedings - Assessee is a manufacturer and trader of umbrellas. During survey, certain documents were found which were impounded. A statement of the Karta of assessee was recorded in which he had admitted that there were certain discrepancies in the impounded documents and he had surrendered for taxation some amount to cover possible anomaly. During the assessment proceedings, he had refuted the surrendered on the ground that there was no undisclosed income. The AO on the basis of statement found that the assessee was liable for further addition of the said amount and assessed the respondent accordingly. - HELD THAT:- Merely on the basis of statement recorded during the survey u/s 133A, such addition could not have been made. To make such addition, some corroborating evidence against undisclosed income was required, which could not be found by the AO.
Decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS DHINGRA METAL WORKS [2010 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT], relied upon.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1166 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from AY 2008-2009 onwards. The provisions of Rule 8D are statutorily mandatory and any working of disallowance u/s 14A is required to be worked out as per formula provided in Rule 8D(2) only. As per the provisions of Rule 8D(2) the disallowance u/s 14A worked out to ₹ 340/- only whereas the appellant itself had offered disallowance u/s 14A at ₹ 5,64,531/-. AO was not justified in disallowing further expenditure of ₹ 34,68,900/- u/s 14A. The disallowance made by the AO is, therefore, deserved to be deleted.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1165 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as to why the comparables situated at SEEPZ selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could not be said to be comparables. Similarly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons as to why other companies selected by the TPO could not be said to be comparables. o p /o p 3. For the reasons set out in the aforesaid paras, in our opinion, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on finding of fact and, hence, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1164 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition on account of share application money received from the shareholders - assessee has failed to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the shareholders - Held that:- The matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steller Investment Ltd. [2000 (7) TMI 76 - SUPREME Court] That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1163 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee or after deduction has not been paid within the period prescribed. The case made out by the assessee is that sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers to “amounts payable” and not to amount actually paid during the year. As per the assessee, the amount in question i.e. service charges to KEM Hospital amounting to ₹ 46,92,084/- is not outstanding as on 31-3-2007 and therefore, even if the requisite tax has not been deducted at source on such payments such expenditure could not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the amounts have been actually paid. This stand of the assessee is in line with the decision of Special Bench of Vishakhapatnam Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra). Following the same, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. o p /o p 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Decision pronounced in the open court on 20th November 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1161 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... io. We also find that the CIT(A) has correctly pointed out that the assessee has engaged themselves in share transactions only of 69 days in a year which itself shows that the assessee is not trading in shares which requires full time engagement and a systematic and timely devotion. It is also not in dispute that in all the shares, the assessee has taken delivery and has paid STT on each transaction. There was no opening stock nor there is any closing stock of scrips. Considering all these facts in totality, we agree with the findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee is an investor and not a trader. Therefore, the direction of the CIT(A) to assess the income as short term capital gains as disclosed by the assessee is found to be correct and needs no interference from us. We, accordingly, confirm the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27-11-2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1160 - SC ORDER
Method of accounting - Excess collection of cash – correct date of payment of PF dues – accrual of interest on government securities – claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) - advance income received by way of commission, exchange and discount, including locker rent - Held that:- All the issues decided against revenue in HC case [2010 (12) TMI 1199 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - No ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. SLP dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1159 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s 80-IB - pure housing project or not - with or without commercial use - built up area - Held that:- Since the expression ‘housing project’ was not defined under the Act, its meaning would have to be gathered from the Rules and Regulations framed by the approving local authority. The Hon’ble High court explained that since a ‘local authority’ could approve the project to be a housing a project with or without commercial use, it was therefore, the intent of the legislature that deduction envisaged u/s 80-IB(10) was allowable to such housing projects. Therefore, the aforesaid objection raised by the Revenue to dis-entitle the assessee from claiming of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) is untenable.
Since the project of the assessee commenced prior to 1-4-2005 the definition of ‘built up area’ as provided in sec. 80-IB(14)(a) cannot be applied in this case. Thus the objection raised by the Revenue to disentitle the assessee from claiming of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act is untenable.
Disallowance on the basis of layout plant - Held that:- The original lay out plan of this commercial building was mentioned as ‘residential plus commercial’ in the original commencement. It is therefore, held that appellant was entitled for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1158 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be afforded, these petitions succeeds as allowed. The order dated 13/09/2012 blacklisting the petitioner is set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2.1 So far as order dated 17/08/2012 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner shall make a detailed representation on or before 26/11/2012. In case such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the respondents by a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks after the representation is made. Till the decision in the representation, the respondents shall not final any fresh tenders. 3. Direct service is permitted today.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1157 - ITAT NAGPUR
Addition u/s 69C - Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that the AO had established that the appellant has provided branded seeds and fertilizer to the Bataidars. In the statement recorded of Shri Raju Neware, the Baraidar has accepted that the assessee has borne agricultural expenses for branded seeds and fertilizers. Copy of statement was given to the assessee, however, the assessee did not choose to cross-examine the witness. CIT(A) was of the view that the AO was justified in making an addition u/s 69C of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1156 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... erest on housing loan. Therefore, it is not the duty of the AO to probe the facts from the return of income while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1). Since, no claim of deduction of interest on housing loan has been made in the return of income and AO accepted the return of income filed by the assessee as it is, therefore, there was no mistake apparent on record of the Revenue Department. Thus, rectification application u/s. 154 was not maintainable in the present form. It appears to be a mistake committed by the assessee in filing the return of income, for which the assessee has been provided remedy by filing the revised return, but the assessee did not take any such step in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. o p /o p 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court. o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1155 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds on payment made to parent company - Held that:- Disallowance cannot be made as it has not been shown or established that aforementioned payments were made by the assessee to the aforementioned group concerns against any contract work carried out by them for the assessee. In the case of reimbursement of expenses, the expenditure incurred is related to the person who has not made the original payment. The payment of expenditure is made by "X" party on behalf of "Y" party and later on the same is reimbursed to "X" party by "Y" party, the expenditure is pertaining to "Y" party and not pertaining to "X" party. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition u/s 43B - miscellaneous expenses as provision for interest on VAT - Held that:- We restore this issue to the file of AO with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to submit all the vouchers. After verifying the same AO will re-adjudicate the issue regarding disallowance of impugned amount in accordance with law.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1154 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ceeding 1500 sq.ft. Therefore, the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal relied on by the learned DR is not applicable. 18. So far as the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vandana Properties (Supra) is concerned we find the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case since the issue there was not of pro-rata deduction. The Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that construction of even 1 building with several residential units of the size not exceeding 1000 sq.ft. would constitute a housing project u/s.80IB(10). We accordingly hold that the decisions relied on by the DR are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, the assessee’s ground relating to pro-rata deduction is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1153 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... uoting of PAN numbers of the deductees in the e-TDS quarterly statement filed in form No. 24Q by the assessee. The assessee in the said form No. 24Q relating to financial year 2005-06 had wrongly quoted the PAN numbers in respect of six deductees. The assessee had not filed the correction statement before the Assessing Officer or before passing of the order of the CIT (Appeals) also. In view thereof the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 60,000/- which was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The provisions of section 272B (1) of the Act provide that If a person failed to comply with the provision of Section 139A, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty a sum of ₹ 10,000/- Thus the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed and the alternate plea raised by way of ground No. 2 is allowed. 6.In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 day of November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1151 - ITAT CHENNAI
Section u/s 145 - Held that:- Assessee has treated the amount in question as unearned income, whereas; per Revenue, section 145(2) is applicable and he amount in question has to be treated as income of the current year.
Expenditure incurred by the assessee in foreign currency towards bandwidth charges paid to a non-resident - Held that:- Payments in question made by the assessee cannot be subjected to the applicability of TDS provisions contained in the “Act”.
Depreciation @ 100% on addition made to furniture and fittings disallowed - Held that:- Assessing Officer did not consider the vital aspects of the issue i.e. nature of expenditure incurred on acquisition of assets. In appeal, same have been taken note by the CIT(A) and accordingly, necessary directions have been issued to the Assessing Officer.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1150 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ad not seriously contested, inasmuch as, it is evident from record that such submission was raised in the course of hearing and has been inadvertently not adjudicated by the Tribunal. The said omission to deal with a plea raised by the assessee, in our view, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of sec. 254(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we therefore, deem it fit and proper to direct the Registry to re-post the assessee’s appeal before a regular bench for the limited purpose of considering and deciding the alternative plea raised in Ground no. 4 which was left unadjudicated in the earlier order dated 6-3-2012 (supra). The Registry is directed to post the matter before the regular bench on 10th January 2013 and inform the Parties accordingly Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the M.A. of the assessee is partly allowed. Decision is pronounced in the open Court on 27th November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1149 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Appellant being an AOP/JV liability to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the constituent partners - Held that:- Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is only to the extent of the amount outstanding as on the last day of the previous year and amounts which have been paid during the previous year cannot be disallowed for non deduction of TDS.
Non- deduction of tax and consequent disallowance for the payments made to M/s. Sino Hydro Corporation, China - Held that:- It has to be verified whether the Chinese concern has offered this income for tax in India. If the Chinese concern has not filed income Tax return and offered this amount as part of their income in computing their taxable income, the same shall be assessed as income of the assessee, as the person responsible for making the payment to the Non Resident. If the Chinese constituent has not offered this amount as part of their taxable income in india, the AO may take suitable action for bringing the amount to tax in accordance with provisions of the Act.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1148 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... achinery, but a machinery by itself. Further, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Madura Coats in TCA 322 to 324 of 2008 dated 22.12.2011 has clearly held that expenditure on replacement of machinery could not be allowed as Revenue outgo, after the enactment of the concept of block of assets from assessment year 1988-89. Their Lordship held whether a mill was integrated whole or not, and whether replacement of machinery resulted in increase in capacity or not, would have no bearing. If an item belonging to the block was removed, its value was reduced and if any new item came in its place, its value had to be added to the block. Thus, in our opinion, ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that the expenditure claimed by the assessee could not be allowed as revenue outgo. No interference is called for. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Monday, the 5th of November, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1147 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the learned D.R. relied upon the orders passed by the tax authorities. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The facts are not in dispute and in identical circumstances the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed that amended provisions to section 115JB cannot be invoked to hold an assessee as defaulter with respect to payment of advance tax merely because the amendment was brought with retrospective effect. In other words, what has to be seen is the law that was existing on the date when the assessee was to pay advance tax and he cannot be branded as defaulter in payment of advance tax on account of law, which was brought in retrospectively. Since there is no other contradictory decision on this, by following the aforesaid decision we hold that this is not a fit case for levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2012.
............
|
