|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 662 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1210
... ...
... ... ..... ing Officer, but Assessing Officer did not record their evidences. We further find that a sum of ₹ 4,13,000/- said to have been received from the assessee’s father was not received during the current year, but it was an opening balance in his hands received in earlier years. We further find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given a finding that the other persons given the loans had income from salaries; their income tax returns were submitted; their cash books were also produced, which showed sufficient cash balance in their hands. Hence, we find that the assessee has submitted sufficient evidence and the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 on account of alleged unexplained credit is not sustainable. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and hence, we uphold the same. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1209
... ...
... ... ..... Ys 2005-06 & 2006-07 ITAT “B” Bench Ahmedabad in ITA Nos.1532 & 1533/Ahd/2009(respectively) titled as “The DCIT vs. Amigo Securities Pvt.Ltd.” vide an order dated 21/09/2012 has arrived at the conclusion that as follows - “6. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that since the assessee has demonstrated that there was sufficient reserves, share capital and interest-free advances stated to be to the tune of ₹ 1988.26 lacs in A.Y. 2005-06 and ₹ 1827.39 lacs for A.Y. 2006-07, then the decision of the CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) is to be applied on these facts. Resultantly, we hereby confirm the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss these grounds of the Revenue for both the years.” 6. Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence hereby dismissed. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1208
... ...
... ... ..... hat originally the disallowance was deleted by the Tribunal and the deduct ion was allowed. This itself shows that the claim was of debatable nature. Further we find that in case of CIT V. Buddhewal Coop Sugar Mills (supra), the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has deleted the penal t y. In that case it was held as under “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the society had paid advance tax as well as self -as sessment tax not taking into account the deduct ion claimed u/ s 80P(2) (a) (iii) of the Act. It was evident from the facts that the as sessee’s claim was bona fide and that all the particulars relating to the computation of income had been disclosed. Thus, the Tribunal rightly cancelled the penalty levied.” Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty and we confirm the same. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 18.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1207
... ...
... ... ..... he course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the same be estimated at 50% of the total receipts. In our considered opinion, having regard to the entire conspicuous of facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to tax the gross receipts of ₹ 26,48,586/- as income and that it would be fair and proper if 60% of the gross receipts be assessed as income earned with regard to services rendered to M/s. Soktas India Pvt. Ltd. With regard to assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 40(b) of the Act on account of salary and interest paid to partners the same be examined by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to re-work the total income assessable in the hands of the assessee as above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 31st December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1206
... ...
... ... ..... has been held as allowable as revenue expenditure. In this case, the AO has not questioned the genuineness of the expenditure or its business purpose or that the expenditure is exceptionally high or of a very special nature. In view of the above discussion, the addition on account of ERP software expenses amounting to ₹ 1,28,91,419/- is deleted. Ground No. 6 is thus decided in favour of the appellant.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard and as such it needs no interference. 18. In the result, ITA No.552/CTK/2012 filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed. 19. To sum up - (1) ITA No.584/CTK/2012 filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is dismissed. (2) ITA No.551/CTK/2012 filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed. (3) ITA No.552/CTK/2012 filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1204
... ...
... ... ..... set off against income under any head. The amount of depreciation allowance not so set off (the "third unadjusted depreciation allowance") shall be carried forward to the following year. The "third unadjusted depreciation allowance" shall be deemed depreciation under section 32(1), that is depreciation for the current year in the following year(s) to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation, in perpetuity.” 14 From the above it is clear that unabsorbed depreciation for the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 which could not have been set off earlier, cannot be allowed to be set off now. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to only allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is outside the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02. 15 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 17.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1203
... ...
... ... ..... lly challenged by the Revenue to establish the transaction to be sham. Therefore, we consider the payment made on account of goodwill is genuine and reasonable since it is arrived based on a reasonable valuation and computation.” 5.2 In view of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 9. Considering the above discussions and in view of the fact that the learned DR could not controvert the submission of the learned AR by any cogent material evidence, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation on good will amounting to ₹ 90,21,444/- and his order requires no interference by us. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal. 10. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14-12-2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1199
... ...
... ... ..... tions. The market conditions does not mean geographical condition alone but also includes the size of the market, demand and other relevant factors influencing the market conditions as a whole. 13. For the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 the Revenue has raised additional ground of export incentive provided to the assessee under section 80HHC. The D.R. has fairly conceded that now this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT., reported as 342 ITR 49(SC). Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 14. Resultantly, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2207/Mds/2007 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos.2212 & 2213/Mds/2007 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, 21st day of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1198
... ...
... ... ..... cisions of the co-ordinate Bench, we are of the considered view that the AO was not justified in holding that the Assessee is liable for deduction of TDS on payment of transmission charges paid by Assessee In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and of Assessee is allowed. ITA Nos. 3382/Ahd/2009,3383/Ahd/2009 (By Assessee), 141, 143 & 144/Ahd/2010 (By Revenue) 10. Both the parties have submitted that the facts and issues are in the present appeals similar to that of appeal in ITA No.3381/Ahd/2009 and ITA No.142/Ahd/2012(supra) and, therefore, they have same submissions in the present appeals also. 11. In view of above facts, the findings and decision given in the above appeal therefore applies to ground in appeal in present appeal also. This ground has already been decided in favour of the Assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No.3381/Ahd/2009(supra). Thus, for similar reasons and observations, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and of Assessee are allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1197
... ...
... ... ..... rofits under section 115JB of the Act. The learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the undermentioned decisions i) CIT Vs. Bhari Information Technology System 340 ITR 593(SC) ii) Al-Kabeer Exports Limited Vs. CIT SLP 32274/2010 iii) CIT Vs. CPS Textiles P. Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 590 (Mad) 55. The learned D.R. for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue stands covered against the assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT 327 ITR 305 (SC) . In view of the admission of the learned D.R. for the Revenue and the reliance placed by the learned A.R. for the assessee on larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems P. Ltd. 340 ITR 593(SC) , we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss ground no.7 raised by the Revenue. 56. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1196
... ...
... ... ..... ice, the agreement assessee entered with TNEB for selling its surplus power which was only a standby arrangement, could not be considered as a yardstick. But, nevertheless, such rates will be excessive if it is higher than the rates charged by TNEB to regular high tension customers. Since these facts are not forthcoming from the orders of the authorities below, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue regarding excessive pricing of electricity sold by assessee to its sister concern, back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 10. In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. To summarize the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and C.O. of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 20th of December, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1195
Dispute regarding nature of income from the settlement of forward contract? - Hedging - Activity from outside India to be treated as Business activity or investment activity - HELD THAT:- Gains arising from early settlement of forward foreign exchange contract has to be treated as capital gain. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and appeals were allowed.
The Assessee's contention of purchase and sale of foreign currency to be treated as Business income and not chargeable to tax as having no permanent establishment in India was rejected on the ground that the assessee being a Non-Resident Company invested in equity shares of Citicorp Finance India Ltd. by bringing capital in foreign currency and to protect its investments from the attraction of FEMA, 1999 where overseas investors were hedging their capital investment and thus assessee entered into Forward Contract rolled over periodically. Since no contrary decision has been brought to the department's notice, it has followed the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, and held that the income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Assessee are treated as partly allowed.
Decision in the case of CITICORP INVESTMENT BANK (SINGAPORE) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1(2), MUMBAI [2012 (9) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed.
In the result, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1194
Addition on Account of 'On Money' Receipts - Assessee had canvassed that not the entire 'on money' received but only the profit element could be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Assessee had suggested addition of 10% - HELD THAT:-The additions are limited to 15% of the 'on money' receipts.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1193
... ...
... ... ..... However, the Tribunal, considering the passage of time, proceeded to dismiss the appeal only on the ground that there was delay in presenting the appeal and no condonation was sought. 4. Having perused the order of the Tribunal and having heard Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appellant, of course, subject to certain strict conditions, is required to be granted one last opportunity of filing application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal. 5. Under the circumstances, order of the Tribunal is reversed. Proceedings are placed back before the Tribunal to permit the appellant to file application for condonation of delay. This shall, however, be subject to following conditions that the appellant - 1) shall deposit sum of ₹ 5000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority latest by 31.12.2012; 2) shall file appropriate application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal also latest by the said date. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1192
... ...
... ... ..... no interest would be payable on such credit by the Government under the proviso to s. 115JAA(2) and that the assessee would be liable to pay interest under ss. 234B and 234C on the shortfall in the payment of advance tax despite existence of the MAT credit standing to the account of the assessee. Thus, despite the MAT credit standing to the account of the assessee, the liability of the assessee gets increased instead of it getting reduced. 9. Considering the scheme of bringing about clarification, it can be said that the amendment in the tax statute was for the purpose of removal of the ambiguity which needs to be held as retrospective in nature. Tribunal was therefore, right in following Madras High Court in setting aside orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) which has been confirmed in the apex Court. Issue having been squarely covered by the apex Court, no entertainment of the question proposed is necessary. Resultantly, the tax appeal is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1190
... ...
... ... ..... bit note received from the parent company. Neither before the AO nor before the FAA appellant had produced any evidence establishing the facts that the said expenditure was directly incurred for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee. It was claimed that assessee was sharing the expenditure with the parent- company. The basis for sharing the expenditure in question was never produced before any of the authorities. As per the settled principles of taxation, the burden for claiming deduction is on assessee. We find that in the case under consideration, initial onus was not discharged by the appellant company with regard to the expenditure claimed. We find that cases relied upon by the AR are not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA needs no interference from our side. Ground No.5 is decided against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1189
... ...
... ... ..... ooks of account and rejection of method of accounting applied by the assessee to draw annual financial statement and total income for all these years is not justified at all. When once rejection of books is found to be not proper and book results is applied, the book results has to be accepted by the A.O. The A.O. has to compute income of the assessee relying on the books of account and taking income on the basis of POCM. Accordingly, no addition on the impugned basis can be made or sustained in all these years. We order accordingly. Our above conclusion takes care of other grounds of appeal, even raised by the revenue. When the correctness of books of account is upheld, any further addition made after rejection of books of account, would not survive. All five appeals of the revenue will become academic now. 18. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 12th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1187
... ...
... ... ..... the requirements of Rule 46A need not be followed. On the other hand, whenever the assessee who is in appeal before him invokes Rule 46A, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to comply with the requirements of the Rule strictly.” 13. In view of the above decision, since assessee had produced additional evidence it was incumbent upon ld. CIT(A) to provide due opportunity to AO after he had admitted the additional evidence. Moreover, the grievance of the assessee was also that since only 11 working days were allowed before the assessment order was passed, no proper opportunity was provided by the AO. Under such circumstances, we restore the matter to the file of AO to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In view of the above discussion, the department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1186
... ...
... ... ..... &O transactions and change of client code was done to rectify mistake taken place due to wrong punching of codes no action was called for against the broker and as well as the appellant. Since the loss has been incurred in the normal course of the F&O transactions and such transactions are in the knowledge of NSE, therefore the loss incurred on derivative trading transactions has to be allowed and such loss has allowed set off against the income from short term capital gain. The F&O transactions have been treated as business transactions if they have been carried out on recognized stock exchange. These transactions have been carried out on NSE which is recognized for such transactions. Hence loss on such transactions is a business loss and same has to be allowed set off.” 9. We uphold this finding and dismiss ground nos. 3 and 4 of the Revenue. 10. In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th December,2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1185
... ...
... ... ..... e to have been utilized for business purposes. Further, even if there were to be a finding as to some part thereof having been expended for non-business purposes, the funds being fungible, as soon as fresh funds are ploughed back or infused by the assessee in its business, the same (unless dedicated for a particular purpose under the terms of their raising) or the funds generated by the business operations, would to that extent substitute the borrowed funds qua the non-business purpose. In other words, there can be no continuing presumption as to utilization for a non-business purpose, and the facts of each year have to be considered separately. The assessee returning income, prior to financial expenses and depreciation, at ₹ 13.42 crores, the Revenue’s case is wholly without merit. We decide accordingly. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2012
........
|
