|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1084 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of the Act, has held that the commission paid to the director was allowable. Respectfully following the said decision of ITAT, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 11. In the cross-objection, the assessee has challenged the disallowance sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 5,50,000/- under Section 14A of the Act. 12. Since we have already restored the said issue to the file of the Assessing Officer while adjudicating upon ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal in paragraph No.5 above, the cross-objection of the assessee has become only academic in nature. The same is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated to be partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 7th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1083 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... IA / 80 HHC cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the questions (iv) and (v) cannot be entertained. 5. As regards question (vi) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question stands answered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd. reported in 2009 318 ITR 172 (Bom). Hence the said question cannot be entertained. 6. As regards question (vii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question stands answered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Pfizer Ltd. reported in 2011 330 ITR 62 (Bom). Hence the question (vii) cannot be entertained. 7. Thus, the appeal is admitted on the first question, which reads as under - “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction u/s. 80HHC should be computed qua each unit and not qua assessee ? ” 8. Ms. Patel waives service for the respondent.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1082 - ITAT CHENNAI
Special privilege fee - Held that:- We hold that all these were instances where an assessee could not make even a provision during the relevant previous year due to lack of knowledge or awareness of liability even at the time of finalization of accounts and therefore forced to claim the same in the subsequent year. The dictum regarding accrual of liability referable to earlier years as held by various Hon’ble Courts cannot be applied where the circumstances are exactly to the contrary. In our view, the case law of judicial pronouncements and precedents cannot be relied upon when facts and circumstances of the case in hand lead to a different conclusion. As in the instant case, the assessee has chosen to make a provision in its P&L Account and claim the expenses in the same year itself. This in our opinion, is in consonance with the fundamentals of ‘real income’ for the purpose of taxation.
Variance adopted in the method of valuation of the stock was based on the opinion as obtained from the Expert Advisory Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee’s submission is that it collects only those bottles which are left empty in front of liquor shops, which has not been controverted by the Revenue. So, there is no cost of acquisition as the same is not assessee’s property. Faced with this situation the ICAI advised it not to value the closing stock in the absence of acquisition as the principle of valuing the closing stock as market value, whichever is lower. So, the closing stock was not valued. Hence, on legality, we agree with the assessee. At the same time, we find from both Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals)’s orders that there is neither any evidence referred qua proper verification of stock nor any findings of facts to this effect have been recorded. Faced with this situation, we remit the matter back to Assessing Officer to verify the factual position enumerated above after hearing the assessee in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purpose.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1081 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Tax liability under provisions of the Income Tax Act - Held that:- No substantial question of law can be said to arise; there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the taxability of the assessee for the assessment years in question i.e. 2006-07 and 2008-2009.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1079 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Adjustment of electricity price charged by the CPP unit from the general unit - computing the deduction u/s 80IA made in respect of market value of electricity generated by the appellant ought to have been accepted at ₹ 5.29 per unit as adopted by the appellant - addition made u/s 80IA on account of exclusion of electricity duty -
-
2012 (9) TMI 1078 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lf-contained code. In section 115JB, as is section 115JA, it has been clearly stated that the relief will be computed under section 80HHC(3)(3A), subject to the conditions under sub-sections (4) and (4A) of that section. The conditions are only that the relief should be certified by the chartered accountant. Such condition is not a qualifying condition but it is a compliance condition. Therefore, one cannot rely upon the last sentence in clause (iv) of Explanation to section 115JB (subject to the conditions specified in subsections (4) and (4A) of that section) to obliterate the difference between "eligibility" and "deductibility" of profits as contended on behalf of the Department.' 3. Learned counsel for the revenue was also not in a position to dispute this position. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1077 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would imply examination of the evidence placed before the authority and some nexus between the evidence and the conclusion reached. In this case, the Tribunal holds that there is no evidence and it seeks to add ₹ 7,00,000/- on an ad-hoc basis to the income declared by the applicant-assessee. However, suspicion by itself is not enough to reach the conclusion that on money' was received by the applicant-assessee for the assessment year 1989-90. The Tribunal has not approved the reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Had that been so, it may have been another matter with which we are not concerned in this Reference. 9 In view of the above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we answer the question framed for our opinion in the negative i.e. in favour of the applicant-assessee and against the respondent-Revenue. 10 The Reference is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1076 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition on account of Land Survey expenditure - difference in valuation of land by treating the same as unexplained investment
-
2012 (9) TMI 1074 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ground no. 5, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground no. 2 relates to disallowance made on account of prior period expenses. The counsel for the assessee has placed on record the order of Assessing Officer giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) vide order dated 5.9.2011 at page 73 of the paper book. Since consequential order has been passed, this ground of appeal of the Revenue has become infructuous. 19. As regards ground 3 & 4 are concerned, they are inter-related. The Revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) for deleting the additions made on account of accrued interest on IDSMT scheme as well as interest from Mega City Projects. This issue has already been dealt with in detail in ITA No.700/Mds/2011. No other ground is raised by the Revenue in the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 20. To sum up all the seven appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1073 - ITAT BANGALORE
Application of income for the purpose of Section 11 - claiming depreciation on same assets would amount to claiming double deduction for the same amount
-
2012 (9) TMI 1071 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 has considered ground No. 1 & 2 only in para 32 to 53 of the order dtd. 8-4-2011 as per page No. 1 of the chart submitted by the assessee but did not consider page No. 2 of the chart wherein the assessee has briefly mentioned the facts and submissions pertaining to ground Nos. 3 to 7 taken by the assessee, therefore, there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal in terms of section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly the order passed by the Tribunal to this limited extent is recalled to decide ground No. 3 to 7 taken by the assessee in the appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3-10-2012 as announced in the open court without waiting for any notice of date of hearing. Accordingly the Misc. Application filed by the assessee is allowed. 4. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-9-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1070 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... llowed by the Act. Therefore, even applying the theory of real income, a debit which is expressly disallowed by the Explanation to section 36(1)(vii), if claimed, has got to be added back to the total income of the assessee because the said Act seeks to tax the “real income” which is income computed according to ordinary commercial principles but subject to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Under section 36(1)(vii) read with the Explanation, a “write off” is a condition for allowance. If “real profit” is to be computed one needs to take into account the concept of “write off” in contradistinction to the “provision for doubtful debt”. Therefore, this ground is allowed only for statistical purposes. 43. In the result, department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 44. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/09/2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1069 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... o Computer Education and Apollo Computer Education Ltd. respectively, as they only represent the repayments of loans availed by the assessee trust on earlier occasions. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on examining all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that there is no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, since the payments made by the assessee to the concerns, in which the managing trustee is the proprietor and Director, are only to discharge the liability of the assessee and there is no benefit derived by the managing trustee of the assessee so as to attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c). In the circumstances, we sustain the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act. 5. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 5th of September, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1068 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... othing is coming out of the findings of the authorities, why the entire claim of expenditure is not allowable. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the claim of assessee in respect of service rendered by the agents and the payments made thereof by the assessee. In case, the assessee is able to demonstrate that the expenditure was incurred towards service rendered by the agents/dealers for the business of the assessee. The Assessing Officer would allow the entire claim of the assessee. However, in case, the assessee is unable to substantiate his claim than in that eventuality the disallowance 10 as made by the Assessing Officer, would remain confirmed. 17. This ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1066 - ITAT MUMBAI
Fringe Benefit Tax computation - excluding Sales Promotion expenses and Promotion event expenses om Fringe Benefit Tax - Hel that:- 1After carefully considering the details filed by the assessee and the explanations given by the CBDT in its circular 8/2005 dt. 29.8.2005, we have no hesitation to hold that all these expenses hereinabove are outside the purview of FBT. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal relying upon the aforementioned Circular of CBDT. Therefore, we do not find any reason to tinker with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which we confirm.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... claim holding that amount paid was only to the discharge of the liability which liability the assessee had taken to pay as part of the agreement entered into. The amount so paid as tax has been held to be the amount payable between the collaborator and the assessee. The Tribunal decided that the amount so paid by the assessee was only in discharge of a liability which it had undertaken in terms of the agreement. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.Takenaka Vs CIT 237 1TR 212 (supra). We find that the facts and issues are identical with those of the above cited cases therefore respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts cited herein above, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” Respectfully following the orders of the co-ordinate bench, we decide Ground Nos. 1-2 against the AO. Appeal filed by the Assessing Officer stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1064 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Held that:- Tribunal rightly held that the assessee had not discharged his burden. The identity of the creditors itself was in doubt. Their creditworthiness was not established. In view of such facts, in our opinion, no question of law arises.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1062 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.” Following the aforementioned decision again the observation of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dream Merchant Enterprises (supra) are as under “Counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the revenue in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Khanna (Income Tas Appeal No.3875 of 2010) has been rejected by this Court on 14/9/2011. For the reasons stated therein, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost.” 5. In this view of the situation, as Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decisions of Tribunal on the issue which are in favour of the assessee and those decisions having been confirmed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we see no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The department appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 7th day of Sept. 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1061 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t Singh,Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. We see no reason to interfere on the facts and circumstances of this case. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1059 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t department filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 28.9.2011 confirmed the order of the Tribunal that sale consideration received by the assessee as well as by co-owners was on account of sale of capital assets. 6. In view of above facts and following the order of the Tribunal which has been confirmed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Krishan Premnarayan (supra), we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) that the consideration received by the assessee from redevelopment of the property is to be taxed under the head “capital gains” and not “business income”. It is relevant to state that department has not disputed that the facts of the assessee are identical to the facts in respect of co-owner of the same property. Hence, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) by rejecting grounds of appeal taken by department. 7. In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed.
............
|
