|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 662 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1242
... ...
... ... ..... ate from the finding reached by the CIT(A) to direct the AO to add the proportion of offered amount of Rs 1.95 crores to the income eligible for deduction under section 80IA for assessment year 2005-06. 104. The ground raised by the department, is therefore, rejected. 105. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. We may clarify that in the course of hearing before us, both the parties cited a number of decision and judgment, which have all been perused by us. We, in any case, have referred to and cited only those cases, which according to us were relevant for taking the above decisions in all the appeals filed by the department and cross objections filed by the assessee. To sum-up The appeals filed by the department, as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 are dismissed and departmental appeal for assessment year 2005-06 is also dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 19/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1240
... ...
... ... ..... f either the Revenue or the assessee. Therefore, we find that the argument of the Revenue that the assessee is the enterprise and it is owned by the consortium of other three companies, in which two companies are not Indian companies, is far-fetched and devoid of any merit. 48. In the facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has satisfied all the conditions laid down in subsection(4) of section 80IA and accordingly it is entitled for the deduction provided under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 49. The assessing authority is therefore directed to redo the assessments after giving the assessee the deduction in respect of the profits and gains arising from its infrastructure project developed at Tuticorin Port. 50. In result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed both on the question of reopening as well as on the question of eligibility for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Orders pronounced on Thursday, the 6th of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1239
... ...
... ... ..... n the absence of proper enquiry and verification of the relevant facts. 14.1 Since the issue with regard to the most appropriate method has been set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer; therefore, in the interest of justice, the Assessing Officer may consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer may also decide the admissibility of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. 15 Ground no.9 is regarding not granting 5% benefit under the proviso of sec. 92C of the I T Act. 16 At the time of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee stated that the assessee does not press this ground and therefore, the same may be dismissed. The ld DR has no objection, if the ground no,9 of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the ground no.9 is dismissed being not pressed. 17 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and partly for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 19th, Day of Dec 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1238
... ...
... ... ..... of business purpose of the assessee. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales V/s CIT (1993) 199 ITR 17 (Guj) after considering the various case laws has held that the gifts given by a Co-operative Society to its members were for the purposes of business. Considering the issue in the light of the above said precedent as well as the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court taken as the basis for deciding the issue by the ld. CIT(A), we find ourselves in agreement that the expenditure incurred on welfare activities for its members is for the prosperity of the Co-operative Bank business and thus the same serves the business propose which essentially is allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Finding no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we decline to interfere with the well reasoned conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 7.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... he shares were not even issued to the aforesaid companies nor copies of such share certificates or share transfer registers have been placed before us. In the absence of any evidence regarding genuineness of the aforesaid transactions in the light of information received by the AO from the DIT(Investigation) that there was specific involvement of the assessee-company in the modus operandi followed by entry providers, we are of the opinion that the creditworthiness of the aforesaid three parties and the genuineness of the transactions cannot be said to have been established. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).Therefore, ground nos. 1 to 4 in the appeal are dismissed. 7. No additional ground having been raised in term of residuary ground no. 5 in the appeal, accordingly this ground is dismissed. 8. No other plea or argument has been raised before us. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (12) TMI 1236
... ...
... ... ..... unt of depreciation on goodwill when the AO has rightly made this disallowance by observing that the goodwill is not a depreciable asset and there is no provision under the law to allow depreciation on it. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,42,02,744/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, when the AO has rightly drawn the conclusion that the packing material consumed amounting to Rs. 5,42,02,744/- both pre printed or plain is in the nature of job work and section 194C is applicable on these transactions.” 22. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are identical to ground nos. 1 & 2 for A.Y. 2005- 06 vide ITA No. 2459/Del/2011. Therefore, for the reasons given for the respective grounds in the said ITA, the Department’s appeal is dismissed. 23. In the result, the Departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1232
... ...
... ... ..... hospital for further examination. Thus, Ext. P.5 cannot be looked into in isolation and must be examined in light of other ocular and documentary evidence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not even expected of PW1 or the Investigating officer PW11 to examine the victim particularly in relation to her private parts. Absence of such recording does not cause any infirmity to the case of the prosecution much less a reason for acquitting the accused. 42. In our considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record cumulatively and in its correct perspective by ignoring the material piece of evidence and improper appreciation of evidence. It has recorded findings which are on the face of it unsustainable. This error was rightly corrected by the High Court, and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the High Court. 43. We find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1231
... ...
... ... ..... cepted the claim of the assessee of genuine share capital invested by the three companies. Therefore, no assessment or reassessment proceedings for the block period were pending on the date of initiation of search and as such those assessments could not be treated to have abated. Since the issue is already considered in the regular assessment prior to the search on the basis of books of account and no incriminating material was found during the course of search, therefore, on the issue of share capital, no addition could be made against the assessee as per decision of Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT(supra). Following the decision of Special Bench also, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. In the result, the departmental appeal in ITA No. 404/Agra/2012 fails and is dismissed. 14. In the result, all the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1230
... ...
... ... ..... f Disallowance Amount Disallowed 1. General Exp. 1637728/- 10% 163777/- 2. Traveling & Conv. 719708/- 10% 71971/- 3. Site Exp. 1327131/- 10% 132713/- 4. Staff Welfare 85726/- 10000/- 5. Repair & Maint. 1018425/- 10% 101842/- Total 4,80,301/- 34. The CIT(A) has deleted both the additions after considering the A.O.’s remand report and assessee’s submission following the decision of I.T.A.T. in the case of Chandra Confectionary Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (2) MTC 1022 I.T.A.T. Lucknow Bench. 35. We find that the facts of the case under consideration are identical to the facts of the case in M/s. A.K. Construction Company, ITA No.149/A/2012, wherein after detailed discussions made in this order vide paragraph nos.12 to 26 confirmed the order of the CIT(A). Following the said discussions, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed in this case also i.e. ITA No.140/A/2012. 36. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1227
... ...
... ... ..... he case and bearing in mind the fact that the commercial area developed by the respondent is even less than 10% of the total area developed for housing, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1225
... ...
... ... ..... s reduced. First sec.80P has to be applied and thereafter alone the Assessing Officer has to look into the question of set off of brought forward business loss which could be set off against the current years business profit. Therefore, the current years business profit alone could be set off of against brought forward business losses. The assessee must be given deduction under sec.80P independently against the income from other sources. If the above correct method is followed, the amount available for set off gets reduced; the amount of losses to be carried forward for succeeding assessment years will be increased and the assessee will get the benefit of deduction under sec.80P. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the assessment as stated above. 9. The appeal filed by the assessee succeeds. 10. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Orders pronounced on Friday, the 14th of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1224
... ...
... ... ..... the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members or income earned by the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members. The source of funds utilized for earning these incomes can not be a basis for making disallowance under these provisions. The business of banking can not be restricted to carrying on activities with members only because there is no such impediment imposed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The direct source of income is ultimately from the credit facilities provided to its members or from sale of seeds, agricultural implements to members only etc contemplated under section 80(2)(a)(iv). We, therefore, respectively following the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Palhawas Primary Agriculture Co-op. vs ACIT (supra), confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, we dismiss the department’s appeal. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... ace and expenditure. Be it as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has produced sufficient evidence before the Lower authorities in support of his claim of incurring expenditure on staff salaries. The disallowance is made on surmises and in a Ad-hoc manner. Thus we allow this ground of the assessee. 7. Coming to the issue of Service tax, the assessee has produced copies of challans, evidencing payment of service tax. The Assessing Officer, without any verification, enquiry or investigation, rejected the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also, has in our opinion, wrongly rejected the claim of the assessee. As this is a payment of taxes and as it is evidenced by challans paid to Government, the verification is very easy. In our view, the same should be allowed. In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... would agree for referring the matter for mediation, which may preferably be conducted by Exchairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes alongwith an expert mediator. Counsel for the parties say that one month time be given them to have instructions in the matter. We, accordingly, adjourn the matter to 31.01.2013.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... n the context of the objects of the trust which are not alleged to be genuine. The basic purpose of Sub-section (3) of Sec. 12AA is to check the mis-use of the exemption under the pretext of carrying out the charitable activities when the same are not so. The CIT(A) has to make out clear case for exercising the powers u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act. Unfounded and baseless allegation without any evidence are of no use. The CIT could have himself carried out the investigation to prove that the activities of the assessee are not genuine or not in accordance with the object. So far as the object of the trust is concerned, nowhere it is disputed that the assessee is engaged in imparting the education. In our opinion, the order passed by the CIT- IV, Pune, does not stand to the test contemplated in Sub-section (3) to Sec. 12AA of the Act. We, accordingly, cancel the same. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19th December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1217
... ...
... ... ..... shing the material facts whereas the assessee was found to be deficient in furnishing the proper closing stock. However, if the contention of the assessee that because of non-inclusion of ₹ 22 lakhs in closing stock of this year the assessee has shown more income of ₹ 22 lakhs in the subsequent year then it cannot be held that the suppression of closing stock was with the intention of evade payment of tax. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, it shall be fair and in the interest of justice, to restore this part of the ground of appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and thereafter adjudication afresh as per law in the light of the observation herein above after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We, accordingly, modify the order of the CIT(A) to the above extent. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 21st of December, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1216
... ...
... ... ..... ck of gold jewellery Rs. 1,37,51,760.00 b. Income surrendered on account of excess stock of diamond Rs. 4,37,56,159.00 c. Income surrendered on account of excess Cash found from the business as well as Residential premises of partners of assessee Firm Rs. 16,82,509.00 d. Income surrendered and utilised by sh. Anil Talwar by withdrawing the same from firm Rs. 8,27,572.00 Total income surrendered u/s 132(4) Rs. 6,00,00,000.00 “ The above matches with the surrender of Rs. 6 crores made by the assessee during search u/s 132(4). Therefore, there is no difference in the stock found during the search and the amount of surrender made by the assessee. In these circumstances we find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 53 In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 81/Chd/2013 is dismissed. 54 In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.9.2013
-
2012 (12) TMI 1215
... ...
... ... ..... the revenue is in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the orders of the CIT(A) while the learned DR supported the order of the AO. 29. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival contentions, we find that the assesee is liable to pay property tax to BBMP and the only dispute is with regard to the quantum of the property tax to be paid. Therefore, it is clear that there is a liability fastened on the assessee to pay the property tax. The assesee has deposited part of the demand raised by the BBMP as per the directions of the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the liability has not crystallized as that it is not tax paid by the assessee. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), the assessee will show the refund as income in the year of receipt but the tax is allowable only in the year of payment. 30. In view of the same, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Dec, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... 8/6/2012 in SA No.192/Mum/2012 and as the appeal has already been heard and order is likely to be pronounced, we are of the opinion that it will serve the interest of justice if the stay is extended till the disposal of the appeal or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier as it was submitted by Ld. A.R that date of pronouncement of order is fixed in the next week. If for any reason, the order is not pronounced within the aforementioned period of two months, then assessee shall submit a fresh application of stay. We direct accordingly. 4. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 7th day of Dec. 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... s transferred from share application money to investment in unquoted shares. The learned CIT(A) also recorded a finding after considering the remand report that the assessee has properly explained the investment in different companies which was added by the Assessing Officer on protective basis. A finding was also recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that no fresh funds were received in the year under appeal, which is as per material on record. Since there is no increase in overall investment, nor in loans and advances, we are in agreement with the finding of the learned CIT(A) that no addition is warranted u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order and the findings of the learned CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objections which are basically in support of the order of CIT(A) become infructuous in view of our dismissing the revenue’s appeal. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2012.
........
|
