|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 662 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1150
Interest received on income-tax refund - Fees for technical services - DTAA between India and Denmark - Held that:- This issue has been decided by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hapag Lloyd Container Linie GmbH v. ADIT (IT) [2010 (12) TMI 282 - ITAT, MUMBAI] by holding interest on income tax refund falling under Article 11 of the DTAA between India and Germany (similar to Article 12 of India and Denmark DTAA under consideration) liable to tax. It has been held in that order that such interest cannot be considered as business income covered under Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany (similar to Article 9(4) of DTAA between India and Denmark under consideration). In view of the afore-noted order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, we uphold the impugned order on this issue.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1148
Validity of notice u/s 143(2) - availability of Assessee to receive the notice - Held that:- We find that admittedly the notice for the assessment year 2005-2006 was issued on 16.10.2006 u/s 143(2) and was served upon the petitioner on 2.11.2006. The proviso to Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act specifically provides that no notice shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which return has been furnished. The Parliament by en-acting the aforesaid proviso specifically, intended that the notice had to be served within a specified period and mere issue of a notice would not be sufficient. The notice had to be served upon the assessee within the period of 12 months from the end of the month on the day return has been filed.
In the present case service on the authorized representative on 19.10.2006 cannot be treated to be a valid service in the eyes of law. The service has to be upon the assessee which in the present case was served on 2.11.2006. The principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Hotel Blue Moon(2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the notice dated 16.10.2006 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition which has been served on the petitioner on 2.11.2006 was clearly barred by limitation.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1147
... ...
... ... ..... erative banks into the taxation structure was mainly to bring in par with commercial banks. Since the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, the provisions of section 80P(4) will not have application in the assessee’s case and therefore, it is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for”. 9.3 Since the facts of this case are identical to the facts of the case considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Bangalore Commercial Transport Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra), we follow the coordinate bench order of the Tribunal and hold that the CIT(A) is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of December, 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1137
Addition relying on the 26AS statement - Held that:- The reconciliation was to be given effect to by the Assessing Officer in view of the fact that it was not purely not undisclosed income in the impugned Assessment Year insofar as the same income cannot be taxed twice and further more expenditure incurred on behalf of the tax deductors not billed to the tax deductors cannot form part of the income of the assessee being a statutory liability could at best be disallowed u/s.43B has not been established by the Assessing Officer which issue leans in favour of the assessee at the time of verification of reconciliation by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh
Addition u/s 43B - delay in EPF & ESI contributions - Held that:- There is no dispute of the fact that the amount in question has been deposited before the due date of filing of return and that too within the grace period allowed by the respective statutes, therefore, cannot be disallowed
-
2012 (12) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... of the transaction in the matter and whatever confirmations were filed were contradictory to the explanation of the assessee. The silver is not a rare commodity for which advance should be given to the assessee for purchase and particularly when the assessee did not deal in silver because the assessee deals only in silver jewellery. Everything is afterthought story made up to cover the unaccounted money. Therefore, it would lead to irresistible conclusion that the assessee has fabricated all the confirmations and it was the unaccounted money of the assessee only which is entered into the books of account under the garb of cash credits given by 20 persons. Thus, the assessee miserably failed to prove his case. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. The orders of the authorities below are, therefore, confirmed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... ght to be projected by the ld. AR during hearing), but at best contentious, and which would require to be deliberated upon. This is as though our purview in the appeal challenging revision order does not extend to the merits of the case where the assessment stands set aside, as in the instant case, with a direction to redo the same, yet if the matter is well settled in favor of the assessee, with the material facts on record, which have been brought to the notice of the revisionary authority, there is little to gain by requiring the matter to be restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. In the present case, it would though be a case of first consideration, as the same had not been subject to consideration by the assessing authority in the first instance. We decide accordingly. 7. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the impugned order. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 5th day of December, 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... ame being delayed, would, in that case, ensue or arise. Subject to the foregoing we confirm the impugned order. 3.4 We may, before parting with the order, further clarify that in deciding in the manner afore-stated, we have presumed that the matter/issue/s subject to adjudication, i.e., on merits, by both the ld. CIT(A) and the revisionary authority, is the same, so that the assumption of jurisdiction in its respect by only either authority is maintainable in law. The basis of our said understanding; the revisionary order being not on record, is the order by the tribunal in the case of Dilip Shah v. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the assessee, as well as the arguments advanced by the parties before us during the hearing, with the assessee also not raising any issue in this regard before the first appellate authority. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, all the seven appeals by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 5th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... ars, the assessee having earned business income in terms of arbitration award. The ld. CIT(A), accordingly, concluded that cars having been used for the purpose of business, are entitled to depreciation. We find from the computation of income on the last page of the assessment order that the AO determined income under the head Business besides rental income. Since the Revenue have not placed before us any material, controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground no.ii) in the appeal of the Revenue for the AY 1998-99 is dismissed. 14. No additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground in the appeal, accordingly this ground is dismissed. 15.. No other argument or plea have been raised before us. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the AY 1997-98 is allowed while that for the AY 1998-99 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (12) TMI 1127
Business income OR income from other sources - Held that:- Such activities and the agreements entered which ensured that effective management of M/s Ma Foi remained with them would show that these were part of an organized and well thought out plan to get more value for their investments. There was no loss of source of income for the assessee by virtue of 1 Million Euro received from M/s Randstad. In such a situation, in our opinion, A.O. was justified in considering the receipt to be from an adventure in the nature of business. View taken by the ld. CIT(A) that if not business income it will be ‘income from other sources’ is also, in our view, justified. Once it is not a capital receipt, then the income has to be taxed under one or other head of income provided under Section 14 of the Act.
Money received was not for any breach of agreement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the amount was rightly taxed as revenue receipts. No interference with the orders of the lower authorities are called for.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... ntained in Section 139(5) of the Act, in view of the facts and circumstances and the devisions of various courts of law relied upon by the assessee hereinabove. We accordingly reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Act. Thus the ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed." 7. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in interpreting the law or applying the law to the facts of the case of the respondent herein. The Government of Gujarat had withdrawn scheme by Resolution dated 17th September 2005 and therefore, on discovering that income had accrued, the respondent had chosen to revise its return. Assessee was within its right and nothing contrary could be pointed out by the Revenue before us from the record to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that either on the facts, or on law any error is committed warranting interference. 8. Tax Appeal resultantly is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... ssee back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. We also make it clear that this direction will not bind the Assessing Officer from considering any other case law applicable to the facts of the case. Though the assessee has also submitted that the disallowance in question under section 14A could not exceed the actual expenditure involved in view of the case law by Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s. Gillette Group India Pvt. Ltd (supra), but in view of the fact that we are only remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, we clarify that the assessee would be at liberty to refer the said case law before the Assessing Officer which would be considered in accordance with law. 12. To sum up, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is accepted for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Monday, the 17th of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1123
Grant of deduction u/s 80 IB(10) - Held that:- Thus issue is now fully covered in favor of the assessee for grant of deduction u/s 80 IB(10) of the IT Act because the assessee has acquired dominant right over the land and has developed the housing project by incurring all the expenses and taking all risks involved thereof. The crux of the matter would be that assessee has acquired the land in question and has developed the housing project at its own cost as per the requirement of section 80 IB (10) of the IT Act
-
2012 (12) TMI 1120
Revision u/s 263 - Computation of deduction under Section 80-IB - Held that:- May be it is true that every claim, which is allowed to an assessee, need not be elaborately dealt with in an assessment order. However, the chain of events should show that there was application of mind atleast on the veracity of a claim made by the assessee. This is not seen here. It might be true that eligible undertaking need not maintain separate account for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, but these were aspects, which were never verified by the Assessing Officer at the time of completing the assessment.
Therefore, of the opinion that the finding of DIT (International Taxation) that the assessment was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue cannot be faulted. We do not find any reason to interfere in such an order of DIT (International Taxation). Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... sequent year and the assessee has been following the mercantile system of accounting. Thus, it should be confirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and material available on record. The case law relied by the Counsel for the assessee was pertained to payment of insurance premium for Keyman’s Insurance policy which was due during the year F.Y. 04-05 relevant to A.Y. 05-06 as per terms and condition of the policy. But such conditions do not exist in case of the assessee. No evidence had advanced before any stage which showed that the assessee had to pay the insurance premium in advance. The assessee had followed the mercantile system of accounting. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). However, A.O. is directed to verify the expenses and allow the claim in A.Y. 06-07. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 07.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... shed the inaccurate particulars of income by claiming 80IB deduction on this income and concealing the particular of income u/s 271(1)(C) Thus, we have considered view that penalty on disallowance of 80IB deduction at ₹ 4,34,837/- A.Y. 04-05 is confirmed. Therefore, the AO is directed to calculate the penalty amount on ₹ 4,34,837/-. The remaining penalty in both the years on other additions are hereby deleted by considering the order of Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petrochemical and PWC (supra). The assessee had disclosed the particulars of deduction in profit and loss account as well as in books of account before the AO for which no inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Accordingly, the penalty levied for A.Y. 03-04 is deleted and penalty for 04-05 is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 03-04 is dismissed and for 04-05 is partly allowed Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2012 (12) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... ils. 21. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, did not object to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. 22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, that no sufficient opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer on this issue, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to pass order afresh after giving due and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the details which are necessary for the adjudication of this issue. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1111
Unaccounted investment u/s 69 - Held that:- There was no basis for the Revenue to presume that the respondent had made the cash payment of ₹ 1.00 crore even though the registered sale deed dt.21- 08-2006 in respect of the above sale transaction disclosed only a cheque payment of ₹ 65.00 lakhs by the respondent. Even if the vendor K.Rajani Kumari admitted receipt of sale consideration of ₹ 1.40 crores, the respondent had not admitted payment of ₹ 1.65 crores and in the sworn statement only stated that she was not aware of actual consideration paid for the purchase of the property as the transaction was negotiated by her brothers. It held that there was no document or material to show that the respondent actually paid ₹ 1.65 crores for the purchase of the property and the Revenue had drawn inferences based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1109
... ...
... ... ..... ne the person on the basis of whose statement the adverse inference was drawn against these assessees. The shares were purchased through independent share brokers. Copy of their accounts is placed on record. The share certificates were issued to the assessees. Keeping in mind all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of view that the addition made and sustained, is not justified as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because without providing copy of statement or allowing for cross-examination of the person on the basis of whose statement, addition has been made in the hands of these persons. Accordingly, I delete the addition of ₹ 63,000/- and ₹ 52,500/- in the case of both the assesses, respectively. 10. Since I have allowed the grounds on merit, therefore, I am not inclined to dispose of the legal grounds at this stage. 11. In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of Dec.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... e years are also placed on record and they have offered the receipts in their profit and loss account and due tax has been paid. Therefore, I feel that disallowance made by the AO, which is confirmed by the CIT(A), is not justified. The Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee for immediately two years. The same services are rendered, therefore, for this reason also, disallowance is not justified. 8. It is also a matter of fact that there is huge loss shown by the assessee in earlier two years, which has been accepted by the department also. If those losses are brought forward then during the year under consideration also, there is a loss. It shows that the assessee is not showing any expenses on account of commission fee for reducing the tax liability. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I delete the disallowance. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of Dec.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... o to the same party. In this case, it is proved that a payment have been gone to the payee only. In our opinion, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and no interference is called for in his order on this issue. Accordingly, the relevant Grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. C.O.No. 91/PN/2011 Ground No.1 6. The Ld. Counsel fairly conceded that the Cross Objection is only to support the order of the Ld CIT(A). We also find that the assessee has not raised any grievance against the order or part of the order of Ld CIT(A), hence, the Cross Objection is infructuous. Accordingly, the Ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1040/PN/2011 7. The Ld Counsel submits that he is not pressing the appeal and he want to withdraw the same. The Ld. D.R. has no objection. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. In the result, both the appeals as well as the Cross Objection are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 28th December 2012.
........
|
