|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 644
... ...
... ... ..... not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to April 1, 2005.” 6.2 Therefore, as per the pre-mended provisions of sec 80IB(10), once the project has been approved by the local authorities, then in the absence of any such condition of commercial area in the provisions of sec. 80IB(10), deduction cannot be denied on this point. Hence, we do find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A), qua this issue. 7 Now, we turn to ground no.1 regarding disallowance of addition of ₹ 4,33,366/-. 7.1 We have heard the ld DR as well as the ld AR of the assessee and considered the relevant material on record. In view of our finding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IB(10), the issue of addition has become infructuous as it become revenue neutral. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 25th, day of April 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 643
... ...
... ... ..... ttestation charges etc. Since the AO did not point out any specific item of expenditure which was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee nor the ld. DR placed before us any material in order to controvert 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.3 in the appeal of the Revenue for the AY 2007-08 in the case of G4S Security Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed. 14. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.2 in the appeals of the Revenue for the AY 2008-09 and ground no.4 in their appeal for the AY 2007-08 , accordingly, all these grounds are dismissed. 15. No other plea or argument was made before us. 16. In result, appeals of the Revenue for the AY 2008-09 are dismissed while their appeal for the AY 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 642
... ...
... ... ..... nsidered opinion and respectfully following the above judgments, that the learned CIT (A) was justified in upholding the assessee’s stand.” 8. We find that so far as present assessee is concerned in the preceding years the A.O. had no reservation in accepting the capital gains, short-term as well as long-term, declared by the assessee inspite of the fact that in the preceding years also there is no much of a difference in the nature of the share transactions entered into by the assessee considering the volume of the share transactions, into, holding period and frequency. Moreover, in the above cited two cases of the family members, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee on the ‘rule of consistency’. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). We accordingly confirm the same. 9. In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 25th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 641
Reopening of assessment - Computation of deduction under Section 10A - whether it is to be done before or after taking into account the brought forward losses and depreciation? - Held that:- In this case queries and questions regarding computation of deduction under Section 10A were raised by the Assessing Officer and were answered by the assessee at the time of original assessment. Failure or mere absence of finding or averment in the assessment order is not material.We dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is a clear case of change of opinion.
-
2012 (4) TMI 639
Disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Held that:- Lay out plan/key plan is different from sanction of plan and commencement thereof. Assessee entered into development agreement dated 2-8-2004 with regards to portion of property of Smt. Sunita Mahadkar. So there is no question of any sanction and commencement prior to it. The commencement took place on this property of assessee admeasuring 52245 sq.ft. out of holding of Smt. Sunita Mahadkar acquired by assessee vide development agreement dated 28-2004. So, there was no question of commencement prior to 2-8-2004. The date of layout of previous owner i.e. 1-10-1998 should not be confused with date of sanction of plan and commencement thereof as held in the case of Aditya Developers (supra). Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act.
-
2012 (4) TMI 638
... ...
... ... ..... ooks of the assessee, the corresponding depreciation would also have to be allowed. This part of the reasoning does not suffer from any error and no substantial question of law would therefore arise. 9. As regards question H, the Tribunal has in paragraph 91 of its decision adverted to the facts. The assessee claimed depreciation in respect of rolling mill rolls in the tubes division. The Tribunal overruled the finding of the CIT(A) that the tubes division did not fall in the category of the iron and steel industry and that only rolling mill rolls used in the iron and steel industry qualify for depreciation. The finding of the Tribunal that the tubes division was a part of the iron and steel industry is not shown to be in error. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal will not raise a substantial question of law on any of the questions urged. The Appeal will accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 637
Gain on sale of shares - LTCG or business income - ITAT accepted STCG on sale of shares - Held that:- The reply given by the assessee was clear and categorical that the five shares had been purchased in the last financial year and the average period of holding in the shares in question was more than four months. There were 12 shares and the transactions were not frequent. The purchases were out of surplus funds. Their main business was not trading in shares but was an occasional independent activity. The assessee had also pointed out that the short- term transactions were the result of either a mistake, or wrong information. The reasons given by the Assessing Officer noted in paragraph 5 above do not justify the plea of the Revenue that the share sold was stock-in-trade. The assessee was not maintaining a separate heads in the books of accounts for shares held as stock in trade or investment, as the shares were held and treated as investment. Further, the number of transactions, 19 in all in one year cannot be considered as continuous and regular. The provision for diminution in value was as per the Accounting Standard 13 regarding Accounting of Investments. The Assessing officer ignored several other aspects and questions which have been raised and noticed and form the basis of finding recorded by the Tribunal. The order by the Tribunal therefore does not require any interference.
-
2012 (4) TMI 635
Entitled for exemption u/s. 11 - approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) - Held that:- In the present case, the issue is relating to allowability of exemption under S.11 or under S.10(23C), and while adjudicating on this issue one has to see the eligibility of claiming of deduction under S.11. This aspect has not been proper addressed by the CIT(A) while granting the alternative claim of the assessee for exemption under S.11. Since the Assessing Officer has no occasion to examine the claim of the assessee under S.11, we have given suitable directions, in the preceding para, to the Assessing Officer for verification.
Claim under S.32(1) - Held that:- Assessing Officer is directed to verify in respect of each asset on which depreciation claimed, whether the value of such asset was in fact allowed under S.11, and if it was so allowed, the depreciation would not be allowed in respect of such asset. Only if the value of the asset was not allowed as expenditure under S.11, the Assessing Officer is required to allow depreciation thereon, as per the rate applicable to those assets, as held in the case of Mahila Sidh Nirman Yojna, cited supra. This issue raised by the Revenue is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, in the light of the above observations.
-
2012 (4) TMI 634
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the Assessing officer and remanded the matter. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal could not have been interfered with the same. Whether the grounds (a) to (h) relied upon by the Commissioner are considered by the Assessing Officer or not is a question of fact. 8. On perusal of the order of remand, the questions (a) to (h) are not taken note by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the order of the Commissioner since the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 9. In the result the appeals are allowed. The order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.662/2008 and 663/2008 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are hereby set aside. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax is confirmed. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to complete the assessment.
-
2012 (4) TMI 631
... ...
... ... ..... on 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appeal effect has to be given/undertaken by the Assessing Officer. In the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No.687/2009 similar directions have been issued. The application is disposed of.
-
2012 (4) TMI 630
Claim of bad debt under s. 36 - Held that:- Going by the obligation of the foreman arising under ss. 21 and 22 of the Chit Funds Act to make good the default to the successful bidder on the subsequent day transaction, the claim was rightly considered by the Tribunal as one allowable under s. 36 of the Act.
-
2012 (4) TMI 629
... ...
... ... ..... invalidity of an assessment etc. on the ground of invalid issuance/service of notice in appellate proceedings. But the assessee is precluded from all the doings for and from assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument made by the ld. DR cannot help the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the notice issued by the AO u/s 148 of the Act as mentioned hereinabove is bad in law and, therefore, the assessment is directed to be quashed. Thus, ground Nos. 1(a) & 1(b) of the assessee being additional grounds are allowed. 13. As regards other grounds on merits are not considered for decision in view of our decision hereinabove. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14 In the result, the appeal the assessee in ITA No.25(Asr)/2011 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.8(Asr)/2011 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 628
Depreciation on on computer peripherals and accessories - Held that:- Allowing depreciation @60% on computer peripherals and accessories. See BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2012 (4) TMI 627
Nature of land sold - location of the property - agricultural lands - capital gains - Held that:- The land in question at the time of sale by the assessees was "agricultural land" within the meaning of Section 2 (14) (iii), therefore, it was not "capital asset" u/s 2 (14). No capital gain is chargeable on sale of such land by the assessees.
-
2012 (4) TMI 626
Whether CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of forfeiture of shares despite the fact that the amount was a Revenue receipt which the assessee had omitted to show as an income? - HELD NO
Whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that the issue of notice u/s 148 is barred by time limit despite the fact that the Assessing Officer has issued notice within the time limit? - HELD YES - CIT(A) has not given any findings to this effect that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a return u/s 139 or in response to a notice under sub section to section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year. In absence of such findings, the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation. In view of the above, we allow this ground of appeal.
-
2012 (4) TMI 625
Assessee in default u/s 201(1) and that the interest u/s 201(1A) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Assesseee was not liable to deduct tax from the amount representing reimbursement of the salary paid by IDS to Dr. Sundararajan while remitting the same to IDS u/s 195 of the IT Act. The salary paid by the assessee to Dr.Sundararajan has been made the subject of tax deducted at source and the same has been remitted to the Indian Income tax authorities
-
2012 (4) TMI 624
Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- Deemed dividend provisions cannot be invoked in such cases because the shareholders are common.
-
2012 (4) TMI 623
... ...
... ... ..... ent (para 29 of the order), relying on the decision of Jeweltex International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 31. We have perused the facts of the case and we totally agree with the observations of the CIT(A) that job work activity is a part and parcel of the business of the assessee. In the business conducted by the assessee, once a receipt gets identified and takes the character of a business activity, the provisions of section 10A shall automatically take its own course for the computation of exemption and allowance thereof. Respectfully following the findings of the Hon’ble coordinate Bench in the case of Jeweltex International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) directly on the impugned issue, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. We, therefore, dismiss the ground taken by the revenue. 32. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. In the result ITA No. 1209/Mum/2008 is partly allowed ITA No. 1615/Mum/2008 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24/04/2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 622
... ...
... ... ..... ties, we find these issues should go to the files of the AO as they are dependent on the outcome of the key issues set aside above. AO is directed to pass a speaking in this regard too depending on the outcome in the set aside proceedings and also considering the plethora of judgments on the said proviso. Accordingly, the said grounds are set aside too. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed pro tanto for statistical purpose” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we restore the issue to the file of A.O for fresh adjudication in the light of the directions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 621
Established method of accounting - Held that:- It is apparent that project completion method is established method of accounting which the assessee has been following consistently from the preceding so many years and the same has never been disturbed by the Revenue. Under the circumstances no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same.
............
|
