|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1272
... ...
... ... ..... s of the expenses claimed, it was reasonable and appropriate for the ld. CIT(A) to hold that profit rate of 6% is fair and reasonable for the purpose of computing business income of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in so holding. The AO has applied exorbitant and unreasonable profit rate of 12.5% without considering the history of the assessee and similarly profit rate of 6% applied by the ld. CIT(A) against 5.18% shown by the assessee could not be said to be unreasonable and exorbitant. Considering the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in computing the business income of assessee by applying the profit rte of 6%. In the result, ground No. 2 of the departmental appeal and both the grounds of cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed. 7. In the result, the departmental appeal is partly allowed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1271
... ...
... ... ..... fore us, decisions cited by ld.AR are as follows - (i) Asst.CIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF 2012 210 210 Taxmannn 244/25 214 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Mahendra C.Shah (299 ITR 305) 5. On hearing both the sides and considering the totality of the facts of these cases, we are of the considered view that the issue is covered by the aforecited decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, wherein it was held that having made a declaration u/s.132(4) of IT Act and having paid the taxes thereon and then the returned income was accepted by the AO, resultantly the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions for availing the benefit of immunity against levy of penalty as prescribed under Explanation-5 to section 271(1)(c) of IT Act. We therefore hold that the cancellation of penalty by ld.CIT(A) was a correct view, hence the same is hereby approved. Ground(s) raised in this regard by the Revenue Department is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1270
... ...
... ... ..... ith the method that may be prescribed. The circular, however, reiterates that the Assessing Officer has to follow the prescribed method if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee having regard to the accounts of the assessee.” On perusing the arguments of the AR and reading the same alongside the decision of Godrej & Boyce (supra), we are of the considered opinion, that the revenue authorities have erred in not recording a specific dissatisfaction, on the working of the assessee and for this reason, we feel necessary that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside on this issue and the AO must compute the disallowance, not only by applying the prescribed Rule 8D but also following the spirit of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra). 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 29/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1269
... ...
... ... ..... to the deduction in respect of the amount received towards car parking space. The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and approved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is that the car parking space forms part and parcel of the housing project, without which even approval for the housing project could not have been obtained from the competent authority Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the assessee is entitled to Section 801B deduction in respect of housing project inclusive of the amount received on account of car parking cannot be faulted. 3. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs." Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, ground No. 6 is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.11.2012 .
-
2012 (11) TMI 1268
... ...
... ... ..... nce the facts and issue for the relevant assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 are exactly identical to the facts and the issue of the case for the AY 2007-08, following our decision for the assessment year 2007-08 cited above, we hereby hold that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions in both the assessment years 2008- 09 and 2009-10 amounting to ₹ 27,35,460/- and ₹ 27,45,873/- respectively. Therefore, we hereby delete the additions made by the learned AO for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-2010 for ₹ 27,35,460/- and ₹ 27,45,873/- respectively by holding the expenditure incurred for the purchase of tools and instruments being top set, drill bits, end mills etc as revenue expenditure. Resultantly, both the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 are hereby allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court - 27/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1267
... ...
... ... ..... rcumstances are the same, the Counsel pleaded that the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case should be followed. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the Tribunal in ITA No.1278/Mum/2009 and 4740/Mum/2008. We find that in assessment year 2004-2005, the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee based on the finding given in assessee’s own case in ITA No.294/Mum/1997 for assessment year 1992-93. As no distinguishing facts having been brought on record for the year under consideration, respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No.1278/Mum/2009 and ITA No.4740/Mum/2008, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition of ₹ 26,44,155 on account of club membership and other fee. Ground no.4 is accordingly dismissed. 8. Grounds no.6 and 7 require no adjudication being general in nature. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on the 26th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1266
... ...
... ... ..... rdered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 13. As the facts and circumstances are the same, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements cited hereinabove, ground no.7 is dismissed. 14. Ground no.8 relates to the grievance that the CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to consider the revised deduction u/s 80HHC for computing book profit u/s 115JA. It is the say of the Counsel that the CIT(A)’s direction for revising the deduction u/s 80HHC have been challenged in the aforementioned grounds of appeal. Therefore, the issues raised vide ground no.8 are consequential to the findings in the other grounds of appeal. As we have dismissed all the other grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue, we agree with the submission of the Counsel that ground no.8 is consequential and accordingly confirm the finding of the CIT(A). 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on the 26th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1265
... ...
... ... ..... learned single Judge in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006 dated 16.1.2007 is affirmed and approved by us. 19. In the result, Exhibit P7 in both W.P.(C).Nos.28702 of 2007 and 274 of 2012 and Exhibits P5 and P6 in both W.P.(C).Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468 of 2010 are quashed. The Registering Authorities, hence, are directed to consider registration of the vehicles on the principles enumerated herein above and allow the petitioners to ply their vehicles on the strength of the provisional registration till their claim for regular registration is considered. The Registering Authorities, when examining the claim in W.P.(C).No.28702 of 2007 shall give due weightage to registrations granted to similar vehicles by other Registering Authorities within the State. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petitions, hence, are allowed, with the above directions. No costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1264
... ...
... ... ..... (HUF) ₹ 2,00,000/-, Shri Rajiv Kumar (HUF) ₹ 1,50,000/- and Smt. Suman Agarwal ₹ 1,25,000/- are required to be confirmed. Because the assessee has filed to produce sufficient evidence in support of credit worthiness of creditors. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the order of A.O in respect of additions in respect of these creditors. In the light of the fact, addition to the extent of ₹ 5,75,000/- is confirmed. However, the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/- on account of Smt. Priyanka Gupta ₹ 70,000/-, Smt. Akansha Gupta ₹ 1,20,000/- and Shri Narayan Das & Sons ₹ 60,000/- have been rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as there sufficient funds were available in bank accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- is upheld. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1262
... ...
... ... ..... unt of ₹ 3.5 crores through their accounts maintained in Allahabad Bank, United Bank of India and Punjab National Bank had recorded the finding. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the CIT (Appeal) by observing that the payment was made through different bank accounts and the land in question was purchased through the open auction by the High Court of Bombay and the amount was paid by M/s. Zoom Developers Private Limited on behalf of the assessee. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. The findings recorded by the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal are pure findings of fact based upon appreciation of material available on record. We find no question of law being involved in the matter. The appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No other point urged.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1261
Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - Assessee had taken loan from few firms which were not found genuine by AO as those firms were allegedly involved in providing bogus entries. - HELD THAT: - Merely because there was a search in aforementioned companies, no inference regarding giving of bogus entries could be drawn. - During search, there is no admission by the assessee therein that they were involved giving bogus/accommodation entries - Findings recorded by the AO is not correct and can not be relied upon.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1260
... ...
... ... ..... d that it has not incurred any personal expenditure. Considering the nature of expenses, the personal use cannot be ruled out. He thus supported the order of A.O. 14. On the other hand Ld. A.R. relied on the order of CIT (A). 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the disallowance was made by the A.O. on an adhoc basis without pointing out any specific instances of expenses being personal in nature. Considering the totality of facts and the written submissions CIT (A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 75,000/-. Before us nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the expenses incurred consisted of expenses which ares personal in nature. In view of these facts we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT (A) and thus we uphold the order of the CIT (A). Thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on - - 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1259
... ...
... ... ..... le transactions of shares having regard to the relevant provisions contained in the Depositary Act. The Tribunal had held that the transactions made through Demat account is in itself an evidence to prove the genuineness of share transaction and merely because the sale of shares fetched a handsome price which price is supported by publication in leading newspapers, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the material on record and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. What was the circumstances under which the assessee had surrendered on account of undisclosed income of the business during the course of survey is not before us either in the memo of appeal or otherwise, therefore, this plea cannot be taken into consideration at all. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1258
... ...
... ... ..... and physical possession of shares of the assessee. demat account held by the assessee and the fact of sale of shares to demat account, receipt of sale price, the purchases having made through registered Stock Broker of Stock Exchange, Calcutta, therefore was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. Simply because there was some variation in dates of purchase and sales as per contract notes and as per stock holding statements or that the party to whom the broker had sold the shares was not available at the given address or that there were deposits in bank account of the broker, just before the payments were made to the assessee may have given an opportunity to the revenue authorities to raise a suspicion but that alone was not sufficient to term the transaction as ingenuine. We are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity.as the transaction have been found genuine. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1257
Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 - Assessee firm took loan from a company that was engaged in providing accommodation entries, thus AO added the aforesaid loan amount in question by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the Act. - HELD THAT:- Lenders were regular income tax assessee and their PANs are on record. The amount had been advanced through Account Payee Cheques. Before issuing the cheques, they had got the balance in their accounts and the amount has also been repaid through Account Payee Cheques, thus the identity, credit, worthiness etc. of the lenders have been disclosed, therefore addition deleted.
Revenue Appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1256
... ...
... ... ..... attended and requested for adjournment but it was refused. From the order of CIT (A), we also find that the CIT (A) has not dealt with the issue that on what ground the adjournment was sought while rejecting the assessee’s adjournment application. After looking to the facts of the case, we find it appropriate and in the interest of justice to restore the issue to the file of CIT (A) for deciding afresh after providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and submit the necessary details before the CIT (A). 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 6th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1255
... ...
... ... ..... the valuation of closing stock on cost price or net realizable value is an accepted method and, therefore, CIT(A) has rightly rejected the view taken by the AO that the stock cannot be valued at net realizable value. However, net realizable value has to be adopted after giving a proper basis. In the present case, the assessee has made valuation of net realizable value on the basis of experience in the market. The net realizable value shown by the assessee at ₹ 1,06,800 is quite reasonable as in the return for the immediate succeeding year, the value of the same stock has been shown by the assessee at nil which remains accepted as there is no addition made by the department to the returned income filed in the next year. In view of this position, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO and the same, is, therefore, upheld . 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9.11.2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1254
... ...
... ... ..... eave Petition (Civil) No. 24115/2011 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31551-31552/2011 Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 31551-31552/2011 In view of order, dated 2nd November, 2012, passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 10531 of 2011 (Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Gujarat v. M/s. Gandhi Fibers, Daman), the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1253
... ...
... ... ..... set off of brought forward business laws. As we have already held that the business has been set up in financial year 2004-05 relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is eligible for set off of brought forward business laws as income from sublease of land has been directed to be treated under the head of profit and gains of business or profession. This ground of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. The next ground relates to the allowability of depreciation u/s. 32(2) of the Act. This ground is also related to the findings of the aforesaid grounds. As we have held that the income from sublease of land is to be treated as business income, therefore, the assessee is entitled for claim of depreciation and set off of unabsorbed depreciation. This ground of the appeal is also dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd November, 2012 .
-
2012 (11) TMI 1252
... ...
... ... ..... ion of section 44AD wherever the total contract receipts exceed ₹ 40 lakhs, with effect from 01/04/2011 such restriction was removed by the Legislature. Moreover, the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in M. Bhaskar Reddy Vs. ITO, ITA No. 168/Hyd/06 dated 10/10/2007 after taking a clue from section 44AD estimated the profit at 8% of the contract receipt. Therefore, by taking a clue from the provision of section 44AD as is applicable for the assessment year under consideration and the provisions which would come into operation with effect from 01/04/2011, in our opinion, the payment of interest and salary to the partner shall be allowed subject to limitation specified in section 40(b) of the Act from estimated income." 11. Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Easwar Reddy (supra), we dismiss the revenue's appeal on this issue. 12. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 05/11/2012.
........
|
