|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1058 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and whether it satisfies the requirement of sec 2(15). In these circumstances we remit the matter to the DIT(E) to reconsider the application of the assessee and decide whether terms and conditions of the trust is of the charitable nature and would fall within the definition of charitable purposes under Section 2(15) and in accordance with sec 12AA. 14. This appeal is filed by the assessee for rejection of their application to grant approval under Section 80G(5)(vi). As approval u/s 80G is consequential to the Trust being granted registration u/s 12AA and In line with our decision in the appeal in ITA No 573/H/12 regarding rejection of registration of the trust under Section 12AA, we remit this issue to the file of DIT(E) for considering the matter afresh on the basis of his decision for granting of registration under Section 12AA to the assessee. 15. In the result, both the appeals ITA No 573/Hyd/12 and 574/H/2012 filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1057 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... or the use of the licence, trade mark and technical information for a particular period. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 8. Respectfully following the order of this Tribunal for the earlier assessment years, claim of the assessee has to be allowed for the impugned assessment year as well. Hence, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 stands allowed, whereas, the related ground of the Revenue stands dismissed.” 5. Thus, this Tribunal had followed its own order for earlier assessment years on the same issue. We are, therefore, of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) was well justified in treating the royalty payments made to M/s Chevron Oronite Company LLC USA as nothing but revenue expenditure, not resulting in any acquisition of intangible assets. 6. Appeals of the Revenue being devoid of any merits, are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 6th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1056 - ITAT MUMBAI
Allowing business expenses - there was no business in existence during the year as the assessee was debarred by SEBI to carry out business activities Tribunal rendered on similar issues in the case of sister concerns of the assessee company. As regards the issue involved in ground No.1 relating to existence of business, he has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s KNP Securities (P) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI) to hold that the business of the assessee company was neither discontinued nor closed down and, therefore, the expenses incurred in relation to the said business were allowable as deduction.
Head of income - under which head interest and miscellaneous income is assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee? - Held that:- As the business had not closed and the claim of expenditure had to be allowed. Respectfully following the said decision of the tribunal we hold that the business of the assessee had not been closed in the relevant year and therefore FDRs had to be treated as pledged in connection with the business which was in existence and therefore the interest income had to be treated as incidental business income.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1055 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... this amount was that the said gain does not form part of eligible income as the same is assessable as income from other sources. This issue was set at rest by the decision of the Special Bench referred to in the order passed by the Tribunal. It cannot also be said that Tribunal did not take into consideration the grievance of the revenue as mentioned in para numbered as (b) as we have reproduced para 2 of the order of the Tribunal in which this grievance is also mentioned. The revenue by way of miscellaneous application is now seeking to improve the case of AO which was not the case of AO at the time of framing the assessment. As the issue has been well considered and while deciding the same the decision of Special Bench has followed, we find no mistake in the order of the Tribunal as has been alleged by the revenue. The application filed by the revenue being devoid of the matter is dismissed. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1054 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... r to the assessee firm, yet we are unable to accept the said contention for three reasons viz., (a) Shri A.Jabir is the son of the managing partner of the assessee firm, (b) the sales man of the assessee firm has confirmed that Shri A.Jabir only fixes the selling rate and (c) management of business affairs by the family members who are not legal owners is not uncommon in the trade circles. Hence, on a conspectus of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 10. The other two additions relate to the proportionate disallowance of telephone and car expenses towards personal use of the partners. In the absence of any evidence to show that they were not used for personal purposes, we do not find any infirmity in making estimated disallowance of a portion of the telephone and car expenses. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 11. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 07-09-2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1053 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e Port in order to qualify for deduction under section 80-IA. Therefore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court never discussed anything with regard to the works contractor or such contractor is eligible for the deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. The case before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was that of an assessee who was a developer and the only dispute was whether the assessee was to develop the entire Port or not. In those circumstances the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that it is not necessary for an assessee to develop the entire port in order to qualify for deduction under section 80-IA. Therefore this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions, the appeal filed by the Revenue has to be allowed and we do so. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 28th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1052 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee when it purchased the shares? If the dominant intention was to carry on an adventure in the nature of business, the profit can be taxed; otherwise not. In other words, the question is whether the assessee purchased the share in a commercial spirit with a view to make profit by trading in them. The Tribunal found, after taking into account all the relevant circumstances that the dominant intention of the assessee was to make profit by resale of the shares and not to make an investment." 6. Consideringthe aforesaid dictum vis-a-vis the findings given, it is clear that the intention of assessee was not to carry on business; it was clearly a case of investments, which were made. Findings of CIT(A) and ITAT are based on facts which cannot be said to be perverse, rather appear to be correct and in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. Thus, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1051 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Officer has also considered the long term capital gains of ₹ 6,74,532/- as exempt income in the hands of the assessee. However, the said long term capital gain was subjected to STT tax paid on the sale consideration of the said shares sold by the assessee. So what is to be taken into account in relation to the exempt income in the hands of the assessee is only dividend income of ₹ 61,125/- which according to the assessee is out of investment made in the earlier year, which were sold during the year under consideration and the long term capital gain on the said sale was declared. We accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction under section 14A of the Act keeping in mind that the total dividend income received by the assessee is only ₹ 61,125/-. The ground No.1b) raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14t h day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1049 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s.11 - directing acceptance of audit report from the assessee - Held that:- The question whether it is permissible to the assessee to produce the audit report at the appellate stage, has already been answered by this court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries Ltd. [1992 (9) TMI 67 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it is held that the provision regarding furnishing of audit report along with the return has to be treated as a procedural provision. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. In that case, the assessee had not produced the audit report along with the return of income, but produced before completion of the assessment.
Benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same, and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income Tax Officer or before the appellate authority by showing a sufficient cause - decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 1048 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... squo;. Hence, the receipts on letting of it is to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’ on the basis of the decisions of the Tribunal in the earlier year and also on the basis of he principal of consistency. Once the rental income on letting out is taxed under the head ‘income from other sources depreciation.” o p /o p iii) As the issue before us is similar which has been decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal referred supra in the assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year, we have no hesitation in directing the AO to treat the hire charges in respect of fitouts let-out to the tenants as income from ‘other sources’. It is ordered accordingly.” o p /o p 15. Respectfully following the same, this ground of appeal is also rejected. o p /o p 16. In the result, the cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 14th Sept, 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1047 - ITAT-MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0B on the profits of the current year without setting off the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses as claimed by the assessee. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed whereas the solitary ground raised in the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. As regards the remaining ground No.2 raised in the appeal of the assessee relating to assessee’s claim for credit of TDS of ₹ 19,603/-, the learned counsel for the assessee has sought a limited relief by way of direction to the AO to allow such credit after verifying the relevant record. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for credit of TDS of ₹ 19,603/- in accordance with law after verifying the relevant record. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1045 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... f the Hon’ble ITAT, in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 2006-07, the assessee is held to be a investor and not a trader in shares.” 8. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case narrated above, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and detailed order by following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.333(Asr)/2010, which requires no interference. Therefore, we uphold the same by dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. 9. As regards C.Os, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. P.N. Arora, Advocate submitted that he is not pressing the C.Os filed by the assessee and has also endorsed the same on the original grounds of COs at the bar. Accordingly, all the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and C.Os filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1044 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y creditors in this regard. In our considered opinion, when the assessee has submitted all the necessary details including the vouchers, address of the parties and PAN particulars, if the Assessing Officer was in doubt in this regard, he should have made separate enquiries in this regard. o p /o p Hence, the addition on account of sundry creditors is not sustainable. o p /o p In this regard we draw support from Apex Court decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Orissa Corp. P Ltd. 158 ITR 78. In this case, it was held that addition was not sustainable when the revenue apart from issuing notice u/s. 131 to creditors did not pursue the matter further. o p /o p 12. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. o p /o p 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 14/9/2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... uly examining the assessee’s claim in this regard.” 9. It was submitted by ld A.R. that right from the beginning it has been the contention of assessee that it had not incurred interest expenditure. Therefore, on the basis of findings given in the aforementioned decision by co-ordinate bench, the matter may be restored back to the file of AO with similar directions. 10. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied upon the order of ld CIT(A). 11. We have heard rival contentions. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s. Auchtel Products (supra), to examine the contention of assessee, we restore this issue to the file of AO with similar directions as has been given in the aforementioned case. We direct accordingly. This appeal is also considered to be allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 14th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1042 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... . The claim of the assessee has also not been found to be false. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting both the penalties u/s 271AA and 271G of the Act. Our view is also supported by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SSLTTK Ltd referred to supra. In the circumstances, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” Having perused the order of Coordinate Bench, it comes out that the issue in hand is no more res integra as the same reason was tendered by the assessee in that case as well. Therefore, we conclude that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty after keeping in mind the circumstances of both cases. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere and revive the penalties on the assessee imposed by the assessment authority. 10. In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday , the 18th of September, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1040 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Supreme court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. -vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax reported [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held in para-10 that the provision for warranty could be made is permissible if the requirements stated in para-10 are fulfilled.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1038 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... med for determining income from dealing in shares and securities at ₹ 59,41,482/-. In absence of any averse finding by the Assessing Office, I find that deduction of ₹ 12,37,578/- is allowable. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction of this amount while dete4rming income related to STT. The appeal on this ground is allowed.” 14.5 In our view, though there is no inherent or material error in the order of the CIT(A), when he has already held that the deduction of ₹ 12,37,578 is allowable; but only for the matter of removal of doubt, we make it clear that the said amount of ₹ 12,37,578/- is allowable both at the time of computing the STT income for the purpose of rebate u/s 88E as well as while computing the total income. 15 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose where as the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th, day of Sept 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1037 - ITAT DELHI
Eligibility for benefit u/s 11 - unexplained investment in building - In respect of unexplained expenditure in the form of difference in building as per assessee’s books of accounts and as per estimate made by the Valuation Officer, we observe that the difference is very small and it cannot be considered for making addition because 10% of difference is always justified between physical valuation of a building and the amount appearing the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that Ld CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions and we do not find merits in the appeal of revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1036 - ITAT AGRA
Rejection of books of accounts - profit estimation - Held that:- Similar books of account were rejected. In the grounds of appeal, there is no challenge to the rejection of books of account. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to the earlier year. The Tribunal in the earlier year confirmed the application of profit rate of 8%, but deleted the separate addition on account of interest income. Following the order of the Tribunal in earlier assessment year, we confirm the orders of the authorities below in applying the profit rate of 8%. However, the interest income of ₹ 78,200/- should not be added separately. The orders of the authorities below to that extent are set aside and modified and we direct that no separate addition on account of interest income be made in the case of assessee. Thus, the assessee will get relief of ₹ 78,200/- and rest of the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1034 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - Held that:- Before us the assessee filed certain copies of tenders suggesting nature of activity carried on by the assessee and argued that the issue is already decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee by various decisions cited supra. However, at this stage we are not in a position to express any opinion on the nature of activities carried on by the assessee. The lower authorities had no occasion to examine the nature of activities carried on by the assessee.
It is appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has to see whether the assessee carried on contract for sale or contract for work and the applicability of Explanation below section 80IA(13) of the Act.
............
|
