Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 2012 (4) Income Tax - 2012 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 421 Records

• 2012 (4) TMI 398 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction u/s 80IB - Date of commencement of manufacturing activity - factory license was issued by the Chief Inspector of Factory only on 3.5.2005 - assessee had in fact began such manufacturing prior to 31.3.2004. - AO disallowed deduction - held that:-Primarily we are of the opinion that while holding that assessees are not entitled to deduction under section 80IB(4) of the Act, we are not reading into it any other requirements contained in any other Act but are reading the requirements contained in the proviso to Sub-section(4)of Section 80IB of the Act so as to require that commencement of the industrial activity must be lawful and any manufacturing activity which is fundamentally unlawful or prohibited by law and against public policy, would not be covered by said provision.

  in cases where the application for license was already made before 31.3.2004, but obtained shortly thereafter, we are of the opinion that such lapse must be viewed as one which is purely technical even without accepting the contention of the counsel for the assessee that grant of license subsequently would relate back to the original date of application. - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 397 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction u/s 80-I - denial of deduction u/s 80-I(9) - Close relations between the assessee - company and the foreign buyer - burden of proof - held that:- there being no material to indicate that the course of business had been so arranged as to inflate profits, i.e. to show a. higher profit margin to the two export units of the assessee, we are unable to answer the question in favour of the Revenue, but the only answer can be that the Tribunal was justified in taking this view and therefore, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  Deduction u/s 10A read with section 80-I(9) - maintenance of separate books - held that:- the question basically arise because the Assessing Authority rejected the method of accounting followed by the assessee for the purpose of computing its profits in terms of the profit and loss account and the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have found that there was no reason or justification for the Assessing Officer to have rejected the books of account as maintained by the assessee which was according to standard accounting practices.

  Assessing Officer is of the view that the assessee was not entitled for the deduction in terms of Section 43B of the Act as the actual payments had not been made good by placing before the Assessing Officer the commensurate material for the accounting period of excise duty and customs. - The second question posed for our answer is answered in the negative and against the assessee but after setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the Appellate Commissioner on this aspect the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer on this aspect i.e., regarding the claim of the assessee for reducing the claim of the MODVAT credit available to it at the end of the accounting period from the date of the closing stock and for such purpose, the Assessing Officer shall give an opportunity to the assessee to place material and pass orders afresh on this aspect of the matter. – Appeals are allowed in part

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 396 - ITAT CUTTACK
  

  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Sub contractor - Non deduction of TDS under Section 194C - hiring charges - tippers and excavators. - transport charges by utilising the trucks of other owners - The assessee being a transport contractor having executed whole of the contract for transportation by hiring lorries from other lorry owners who simply placed the vehicles at the disposal of the assessee without involving themselves for carrying any part of the work undertaken by the assessee could not be said to have made the payments for his business involving deduction of tax at source to another contractor. The work contract as defined exclude payments for hiring out lorries therefore could not be subjected to consider the issue of claiming of higher depreciation also. The assessee owns those assets which are leased out for the purpose of hiring out and the nature of business clearly entitles the assessee to claim higher depreciation when the assessee for the volume of work hires other trucks from other truck owners for executing its contract. - No TDS - Dis-allowance deleted - Decided in favor of assessee.

  Higher rate of depreciation - lease out of trucks - held that:- as the assessee has clearly hired them out by way of a sub-contract its machinery and equipments which income has been returned by the assessee therefore could not be said to have been reduced from the expenditures incurred for hiring out the vehicles of the other truck owners. - The word "hired" used by the law was to only indicate that some income should be rendered to taxation by utilization of those assets and not that assets which can only be hired out can be used for claiming higher depreciation. The fact that the assessee chose to lease out the trucks does not on that score disentitle higher rate of depreciation. - - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 395 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  MAT - Addition made by the AO u/s. 115JB - capital gain have not been routed through profit & loss account - held that:- the Act has recognised that there may be cases where F.Y of the company may be different from the previous year and if the financial accounts are adopted in the previous year then such accounts must have similar Accounting Policies and Accounting Standard etc. - Now, who is going to check this aspect? Obviously, the Registrar of Companies is not concerned with these aspects whether accounts adopted for the previous year are same or not because the Registrar of Companies at best is concerned whether the accounts adopted and laid before the annual general meeting are in accordance with the requirements of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, in view of these enlarged requirements, we are of the view that AO has powers to go behind the accounts and see whether same have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956.

  Atleast u/s.115JB AO has power to go behind the accounts. - it is clear that book profits have to include the profits earned from capital gains. - assessee had earned certain profit on sale of shares and some industrial units which admittedly have not been credited to the profit & loss account which is contrary to the significant accounting policy of the assessee itself as well as against the requirements of Accounting Standard AS-13 and requirements of Part II and Part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, in our opinion, AO has rightly brought these items to taxation under the MAT provisions of sec. 115JB. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 394 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Disallowance of long term capital loss, arising on conversion of US 64 units into 6.75% tax free bonds, after indexation of cost, as claimed by the Appellant - Exemption u/s 10(33) - held that:- The provisions are not meant to enable an Assessee to claim loss by indexation for set off against other capital gain chargeable to tax. The intention of the legislature was only to restore status quo ante and not to confer any benefit of carry forward of capital loss for set off against capital gain chargeable to tax in the subsequent Assessment years. The economic reasons for insertion of Sec. 10(33) of the Act clearly shows that the source viz., transfer of capital asset being units of US 64 itself that has been excluded by the will of the Legislature and not the capital gain alone. - Decided against the assessee.

  Regarding deduction u/s 80HHC - The assessee had claimed a sum of ₹ 1,14,844/- as deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act, however the AO allowed deduction of only ₹ 1,00,600/- because this was the sum specified in the report in Form 10CCAC which has to be filed by the Assessee in terms of Sec. 80HHC(4) - It is not in dispute that in Form No. 10CCAC while calculating the deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act Excise Duty had been included as part of the total turnover - the tax liability has to be determined in accordance with law and the mistake made in the certificate of the Chartered Accountant in Form 10CCAC should not have been relied upon by the revenue for reducing a legitimate claim for deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act made by the Assessee - Held that: the claim made by the assessee for deduction u/s. 80HHC at a sum of ₹ 1,14,844/- has to be accepted - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 393 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Search and seizure - Claim of interest under section 132B(4) - The petitioner claims that an amount of Rs. 1,60,000 seized from him was neither appropriated nor treated as advance tax - Section 244A deals with interest on refunds. - It states that whether the refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under the Income-tax Act, he is entitled to receive the said amount with simple interest upon it calculated at 1 per cent. for every month or part of months comprised in the period or periods from the date of payment of tax or penalties to the date on which refund is granted - Held that:- respondents are, therefore, liable to pay interest on the above amount of Rs. 1,60,000 from July 5, 1996, till December 2, 1996, as calculated under section 244A(1)(b). - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 392 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Addition on account of foreign education expenditure of the son of the Director of the assessee company - Held that: The education of the children is sole and exclusive responsibility of the parent and cannot be mixed up with the business of the family owned company - Expenditure on higher education of the son of the director, in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and without any extra commercial circumstance – Decided against the assessee.

  Regarding depreciation of BSE card and FEDAI membership - It is clear from the developments of BSE as well as from the amended provisions of the Act that after corporatisation of BSE and corresponding amendment in the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Membership Card of the erstwhile BSE ceased to exist and the cost of shares of the recognized Stock Exchange allotted in lieu of the card under the scheme of demutualization shall be the cost of acquisition of original membership of the Stock Exchange; whereas the cost of the capital asset being trading or clearing rights of recognized Stock Exchange acquired under the said scheme shall be deemed to be nil.

  As regards the membership of FEDAI is concerned, despite specific query from the Bench about the status of the membership card of FEDAI; whether the same development/charges as taken place as in the case of membership card of BSE, the ld AR has expressed his inability to say anything and requested that the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for consideration of all the relevant facts and decide the same – Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to AO

  Deduction for payment of penalty on violation of bye-laws of Stock Exchange - held that:- penalty for short payment of margin money was a compensatory payment under rule of stock exchange which is allowable as revenue expenditure.

  Membership fee paid to Dubai Gold and Commodity exchange. - Held that:- the membership expenditure is undoubtedly a capital in nature. The membership of DGCX was once for all and the expenditure would have an enduring benefit. Therefore, in case the assessee would have taken membership, the entire membership fee was to be treated as a capital expenditure.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 380 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Addition to income u/s 50C – Assessee booked under-constructed flat - ₹ 50, 000/- payable at the time of booking and the balance payable in installments all before taking possession– cancelation of the booking due to non delivery - tri party registered sales deed executed between the appellant, the builder and the new buyer – Held that:- triparty registered sale agreement for transfer of the said flat wherein the appellant as the vendor was to transfer all his rights, title and interest in the said flat to the buyer and the was to give the possession of the said flat which was originally agreed to be allotted to the appellant - provisions of section 50C of the I. T. Act are applicable in the case of an assessee when he transfers a capital asset – upheld conclusion arrived at by CIT (A) – against revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 379 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Return filed u/s 139(1) - notice issued u/s 143(2)/115WE(2) - assessee pleaded as per amended proviso to Section 143(2) no notice under Section 143(2)(ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished - Writ petition – Held that:- if there are two interpretations then the interpretation favorable to assessee will have to be adopted as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd (1998 -TMI - 5659 - SUPREME Court ) - Though the subject of the charge is the income of the previous year, the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year – twelve moths' period from the end of the month in which the return was filed, expires in 31st July, 2008, so a notice was supposed to be served maximum on/or before 1st August, 2008, but it was given on 26.09.2008 - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Tribunal held that the re-assessment was bad in law and beyond the time for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 - Held that: - the returns filed for the assessment years were in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the technical knowhow fees were also clearly disclosed while arriving at the net profits under the Companies Act as well as in its computation of income filed along with the returns of income-in the absence of any material to revise the assessment by taking recourse to Section 147, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law – no ground warranting reopening and there are no materials placed before this Court to disturb the findings of the Tribunal - against revenue

  Relief under Section 35AB – Held that: - Definition of "paid" as appearing under Section 43(2) as referring to amount actually paid or "payable" according to the method of accounting upon the basis on which the profits and gains are computed under the head of profits and gains in business or profession, the assessee having the account on mercantile basis and hence, allowed the claim on merits - the assessee admittedly maintaining its account on mercantile basis the contention of the assessee on the applicability of the definition of "paid", as appearing in Section 43(2) is accepted – against revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 377 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Depreciation claim - company incorporated to carry on the business of Aqua Farms and Shrimp Farming -name changed and the assessee entered the business of handling transportation – return filed declaring loss – AO disallowed and added back the depreciation claim on ponds and plant & machinery discontinued long back - assessment reopened u/s 147 - disallowing the depreciation observing that for claiming depreciation, the assessee should not only own the assets, but also the assets should be put to use in the relevant assessment year – Held that:- As long as an asset forms part of the block of assets and the block continues to exist, provisions of S.50 do not come into play and depreciation has to be allowed on that portion of the WDV of the assets which have been scrapped, after reducing the scrap value from the block of assets - 'block assets' depreciation on ponds and plant & machinery which are forming part of the block of assets has to be allowed as deduction – in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 376 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Review of the orders passed by the Division Bench - invoking sub-section (7) of Section 260A – Held that:- There is distinction between substantive review and procedural review. Substantive review must be conferred whereas procedural review is inherent in every court or Tribunal - since the power of substantive review having not been conferred under the Income-tax Act, the review as filed is not maintainable - Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. M/s. The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd (2009 - TMI - 75400 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) stated that sub-section (7) of Section 260A makes the procedure pertaining to an Appeal, as set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and these provisions will not enable the Court to review its own order or exercise the power of review in terms of Section 114 - the power of review has to be specifically conferred and it cannot be assumed by the Court – against revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 375 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Rejection of assessee’s claim for registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G – assessee’s is running an institution called 'Preston International College' as Trust – Held that:- Conducting courses and programme of the Distance Learning courses and running study centers for and on behalf of the University and sharing the fees collected from the students are in the nature of commercial activities and cannot be considered as charitable in nature - assessee's college is functioning as a coaching institute run on commercial lines – Rendering education and medical care to a millionaire is not charity. Charity reflects the concern of a society in the upliftment - against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 374 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Plant and machinery (not in use) acquired - Tribunal treated it as long term capital assets for the assessment year 2006-07 as it was sold in the financial year 2005-06 – revenue appeal that plant and machinery (not in use) would be covered by the expression 'block of assets' - Held that:- the assessee has shown two block of assets separately i.e. one on which depreciation was claimed @ 25% and the other on which no depreciation was claimed in any of the previous years, the two assets are different from each other - the assessee having not claimed any depreciation on the same cannot be burdened with the provisions of Section 50 - in the absence of any depreciation being allowed to the assessee in any of the previous years on the said plant and machinery (not in use),the gain arising on the transfer of the said asset is to be treated as long term capital gain – directed in adopting the indexed cost of acquisition in determining the income from long term capital gain on sale of plant and machinery (not in use) – against revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 373 - ITAT PUNE
  

  Depreciation - Reclassification of 'Plant & Machinery' as Furniture - the assessee submitted that the assessee engaged in the manufacture of the chemicals and vaccines and for this, the assessee has laboratories - High Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Park Devis (India) Ltd. (1994 -TMI - 19344 - BOMBAY High Court), is clear on the issue that the 'functional test' has to be applied in deciding if a particular tool constitutes plant and machinery or the furniture - if the Stools, Tables, Stainless Steel racks, SS cupboards, SS trolleys, SS trays etc are required for the laboratory purpose i.e. for the purpose of production or processing of the chemical tests in the laboratory premises leading to the production of the stocks, they must be categorized as plant and machinery - Held that: the revenue authorities have carried away more by the nomenclature rather than the functions of the impugned items - Decided in favor of the assessee

  Regarding depreciation on 'intangible Asset' being non-compete fee - the assessee's submissions in nutshell are that (i) it is the decision of the revenue to treat the said 'non-compete fee' as the 'capital expenditure' and to grant 'depreciation' on the same for the AY 2000-01 and in effect it already entered the 'block of assets' in the AY 2000-01 by virtue of the thrusting by the AO - if the capital expenditure by way of 'non compete fee' in question is an 'intangible asset' and if the same is depreciable asset for the benefits u/s 32 of the Act - ITAT in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd [2008 -TMI - 69913 - ITAT MADRAS-B] - Decided in favor of the assessee.

  Reduction of Sales tax refund from business profits while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC - held that:- AO shall grant relief in this regard

  Reducing interest income from business profits while computing deduction u/s.80HHC - held that:- matter remanded to AO for fresh decision.

  Regarding deduction u/s. 80HHC - the profit of the EOU unit u/s. 10B forms part of the 'profits of the business' as defined in Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act for the purpose of determining the allowable deduction under the said section and consequently, the export and total turnover of the said EOU unit are required to be included in the export turnover and total turnover of the assessee as well - the assessee did not include the profit of the EOU unit, Export and Total turnovers in the numerator and denominator of the formula devised for computation of deduction u/s 80HHC and the assessment was completed accordingly - the assessee is of the view that the Tribunal has confirmed the principle of inclusion of the Export turnover in the Denominator of the formula devised for computation of allowable deduction u/s 80HHC.

  Considering the 'principle of parity', once a constituent is added to the total turnover, the denominator, the same has to be included to the 'export turnover', the numerator - Inclusion in profits of business is a wasteful exercise in this case hence, it does not make any difference since the special deductions quantitatively exceeds the available profits and gains of the business of the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to AO to recompute the deduction u/s 80HHC

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 372 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Determination of monetary limit for filing appeal before tribunal - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in dismissing the Appeal of the revenue on the ground of low tax when the tax effect was Rs. 18,83,616 (Notional), which exceeded the monetary limit prescribed by the Board - if the difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) in terms of quantum of loss is considerable, whether the Revenue's appeal would be shut out as not maintainable simply because in any case the assessee's income is negative for a particular assessment year - It is for this reason that Section 80 of the Act provides that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-Section (3) of Section 139, shall be carried forward or set off under Sections 72(1) or 73(2) or 74(1) or (3) or under Section 74(3) of the Act - From the above statutory provisions, it can be seen that merely on the ground that even if the Assessing Officer's order is restored, the net result would be a negative income, the issue cannot be treated to be one of academic interest - It is, however, clarified that the notional tax effect would have to be above the limits prescribed by the Board from time to time for presentation of such appeals. In all these cases since it is stated that the notional tax effect would be higher than the limits prescribed by the Board in different circulars, we are of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the Revenue's appeals as being not maintainable - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to Tribunal

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 371 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Deduction u/s 10A/10B - Tribunal not allowed the deduction under sections 10A/10B on Rs. 14,31,96,372/- representing the amount of depreciation, which was not claimed but allowed by the AO while computing deduction - held that:- all expenses and allowances, deductible or not deductible, covered under these sections starting from 30 and ending with 43D have to be necessarily given full effect to for the purposes of computing income from business under section 28. The income so determined, in the absence of any definition of profits of business given in section 10A, shall constitute 'profits of the business'. As section 32 granting depreciation is included in sections 30 to 43D, there is no reason for excluding it for the purposes of computing the profits of the business of the undertaking.

  Assessee contended that the judgment of Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd. (2003 -TMI - 11904 - BOMBAY High Court) should not be applied to section 10A because that judgment deals with deduction u/s 80HHC - held that:- The contention of the assessee would have merited acceptance if cognizance of the judgment in Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd.'s (2003 -TMI - 11904 - BOMBAY High Court) had been taken while interpreting section 80HHC. Since we are concerned with sections 10A/10B having no definition of the expression "profits of the business", there is no scope for arguing that the judgment in the case of Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable which, in fact, has interpreted the expression "profits of the business" in the context of section 80HH without there being any specific definition of it.

  Clause (i) of sub-section (6) makes it clear that in computing the total income of the assessee for the eleventh year (i.e. after the expiry of the benefit u/s 10A for the first ten assessment years), depreciation u/s.32 shall be computed on the written down value of the fixed assets as reduced by the full amount of depreciation allowable for the ten relevant assessment years from the actual cost of the assets. Further, clause (iv) makes it clear that the written down value of any asset used for the business of the undertaking in the eleventh year shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and had been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. We are unable to either expressly find or infer from the language of subsection (6) that in the first ten relevant assessment years, the assessee has a choice to claim or skip depreciation and if he chooses to dispense with the depreciation, then to compute the profits of business and the resultant deduction on the amount of profit before depreciation.

  The profits of the business for all the years in the first block need to be computed by considering that any expenditure or allowance which contributed to the earning of income and is permissible u/ss 28 to 43D, must be allowed. If that is the position, then it is difficult to accept that the assessee should be allowed to compute profits of business during the currency of the years of deduction u/s 10A without reducing the amount of depreciation. - the ld. CIT(A) has taken an unimpeachable view in echoing the action of the AO in deducting depreciation of Rs. 14.31 crore and odd from the profits of business for the purposes of computing deduction under sections 10A/10B. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 370 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C – assessee contested that as the payee being a non-resident tax ought to have been deducted u/s.195 of the IT Act - AO charged interest after considering the actual amount of tax deducted at source – Held that:- the interest under section 234A is not levied for any default of payment of any advance tax, but is levied for default in furnishing return of income within the specified time - the interest under section 234A is to be computed by excluding the amount of tax actually deducted from the assessee during the relevant previous year and interest under section 234B and 234C are to be charged by excluding the tax, which was deductible from the assessee as per provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act - set aside the Order and direct the AO to recompute the interest - Appeal of assessee partly allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 361 - ITAT AGRA
  

  Addition u/s 69 - Assessing Officer noticed that as per Annexure-B of audit report fresh loan of Rs. 58,42,320/- has been shown which included loan from Sona Traders Rs. 18,24,950 - the bank account and other details were not furnished, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 18,24,950/-as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act - The admitted facts of the issue is that there was opening balance in the account of Sona Traders for a credit balance as evident from the copies of account reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his order - Held that: there is no contrary material or facts available on record nor the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out any such contrary material to the finding of the CIT(A), in the light of the facts, order of the CIT(A) is confirmed - Appeal is dismissed

  Regarding addition of Rs. 15,40,000/- made under section 68 - Assessing Officer was of the view that under the circumstances the amount of Rs. 15,40,000/- could not be treated as explained credit entry - In the case under consideration the issue is in respect of gift of Rs. 15,40,000/- from younger sister of the assessee - It appears from reading of section 68 of the Act that whenever a sum is found credited in the books of account of the assessee then, irrespective of the colour or the nature of the sum received which is sought to be given by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has the jurisdiction to enquire from the assessee the nature and source of the said amount - Held that: The assessee has also failed to furnish the complete circle of all these transactions that wherefrom original money came to the account of Smt. Anjali Consul which was invested in units as well as in banks in the form of fixed deposits and others - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 360 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Additions made by the AO u/s 10A and 80HHE - Penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- in the AY 2003-04 & ₹ 1,05,00,000/- in the AY 2004-05 levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) - During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee, inter alia, did not receive or bring in convertible foreign exchange into India within the stipulated time on account of exports made by it to the extent of ₹ 13,16,087/- in Leela Unit & ₹ 25,08,077/- in GNR unit - the assessee claimed deduction on the basis of report dated 27.11.2003 of the CA in form no. 56 F & 10CCAF - assessee, in the instant case, merely made a bona fide claim for the deduction in terms of the said certificate while pointing out that the aforesaid amounts towards exports were not realized within the stipulated period. Not even a whisper has been made in the penalty order as to which specific particulars were furnished inaccurate or were concealed - The assessee, in the instant case, merely made a bona fide claim for the deduction in terms of the said certificate while pointing out that the aforesaid amounts towards exports were not realized within the stipulated period

  A mere rejection of the claim of the assessee by relying on different interpretations does not amount to concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessee - Held that: the disallowance of claim for deductions u/s 10A & 80HHE in relation to unrealised exports or disallowance of an estimated amount, having recourse to provisions of sec.14A the Act cannot be considered as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, especially when all the relevant particulars were disclosed before the AO - Mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, is no ground for levying penalty, especially when there is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide or any material particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate - Appeals are dismissed

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 22