|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1032 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e windmill, because in the absence of these components and electric items it was not possible for the windmill to produce electricity. Therefore, it was also and integral part of the windmill. In the instant case, the assessee paid a sum of ₹ 31,25,000/- to M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd through whom the windmill was installed. The said payment was non-refundable. The said expenditure was made for the installation of the windmill and if there was no such windmill installation, the assessee could not have incurred such expenses, therefore, expenditure incurred on common power evacuation was directly related to the windmill and the assessee was entitled for higher depreciation. We, therefore, considering the totality of facts do not see any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue. 25. In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA No. 315/JU/2009 is allowed while appeal in ITA No. 438/JU/2010 is partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 20.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1031 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n (supra) supports the case of the assessee, wherein it is held that the assessee had explained that just to get a larger amount from the bank, it had shown higher figures of stocks for hypothecation to the bank. Hon’ble Court further held that it is common for assessees to show exorbitant figures of stocks to banks to get more amounts of loan and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed on the sole basis of figures given to the bank for taking more loan from the bank. In this view of the matter, following the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court, we hold that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is accordingly deleted and the orders of the lower authorities on this issue is set aside, and the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1030 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... v. And Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv.-on-Record ORDER Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1029 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... p 11. Since the facts of the case under consideration and the facts of the case decided by I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. Lala Ram Finance & Investment are identical, we follow the above order of I.T.A.T. and in the light of that we delete both the additions made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of interest ₹ 15,37,500/- under section 36(1)(iii) and addition of ₹ 24,69,235/- invoking section 14A of the Act. o p /o p 12. Since the facts of the case for A.Y. 2006-07 are similar to A.Y. 2007-08, therefore, in the light of the above discussions in A.Y. 2007-08, grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 are decided accordingly. We delete both the additions made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) ₹ 20,50,000/- and addition of ₹ 20,418/- invoking section 14A of the Act for the A.Y. 2006-07. o p /o p 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. o p /o p (Order pronounced in the open Court) o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1028 - ITAT PUNE
Activity of transacting in shares/mutual funds by engaging a Portfolio Management Service - capital gains OR business income - Held that:- The Investment Objective of the assessee mandated to the PMS provider was to achieve growth prospects and the actuality of transactions carried out by the PMS provider in order to achieve the stated Investment objective of the assessee cannot be made a basis to charge the assessee of having a different objective. Considering the aforesaid matters, we, therefore, are of the view that the objections made out by the Assessing Officer have been adequately addressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in coming to his findings that the investments carried out by the assessee through the PMS provider do not result in a gain assessable as business income.
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that expenditure on PMS has not been claimed by the assessee and there does not remain any other expenditure other than this expenditure, therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule8D can be made. The above factual finding given by the learned CIT(A) could not be controverted by the learned DR. Under these circumstances, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1027 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 80JJAA - workmen as employed for more than 300 days - loss on damage - shipment of computers - revenue or business loss - TP Adjustment - capital loss u/s 45(1) - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, the assessee had placed order for supply of machinery. When the equipment was in transit, according to the assessee, it got damaged and returned to the supplier. The Insurance Company had compensated the assessee a part of the cost of the asset so damaged. As rightly pointed out by the AO, the difference between the cost of the equipment and the amount so reimbursed by the Insurance Company was a capital loss having been incurred in relation to acquisition of a capital asset. The nature of expenditure has to be decided by the objective with which it is incurred and not by the nomenclature or the accounting treatment given to the expenditure.
The main objective of the assessee was to acquire the machinery and naturally the entire expenditure for its acquisition will have to be capitalized. In the instant case, the equipment got damaged while in transit, the Insurance Company after duly assessing the damage compensated a portion of the cost of the equipment. Moreover, the assessee had treated the receipt of the insurance claim as a capital receipt in its accounts. Thus, the remaining portion of the cost of the equipment, as rightly observed by the AO and subsequently sustained by the CIT (A), cannot be allowed as a revenue loss.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO was fully justified in rejecting the assessee’s claim of deduction being the loss on account of damage to an asset.
We find that there has been no finding recorded by the first appellate authority. With regard to the assessee’s other alternative claim of loss on account of damage of computer equipments constitutes short term capital loss u/s 45(1A) of the Act, we would like to point out that the assessee had not raised this contention before the lower authorities. However, since the claim is purely a legal issue, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by the CIT(A).
Thus, both the alternative claims are restored back to the file of the CIT (A)-LTU with a specific direction to address to the grievance of the assessee after obtaining the required clarifications from the assessee, if need be, and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act. It is ordered accordingly.
TP Adjustment : We are of the view that since the CIT(A) has not considered the issue, the matter needs to be restored to the CIT(A) for denovo consideration. It is in doubt, after having accepted the MAP resolution passed by the competent authority, whether the ALP arrived at can be altered. However, since the issue was not disposed off by the CIT(A), addressing the assessee’s contention, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the CIT(A).
Accordingly, ground no.9 raised by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Deduction u/s 80JJAA - Employees worked for less than 300 days in the previous year - We have perused the findings of the Hon’ble earlier Bench for the AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03 in the assessee’s own case wherein the Hon’ble Bench had allowed the claim of deduction.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue requires re-examination. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment giving specific direction to Assessing Officer to disallow the 80JJAA claim in respect of permanent employees salary who have worked for less than 300 days in the concerned previous year. The CIT(A) has not considered the assessee’s elaborate submission in respect of the issue. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1026 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are required to be furnished to the assessee and the reasons recorded cannot be improved upon or amended by any correspondence, letters, etc. Though the reasons recorded were called for by the CIT(A) at the time of hearing before him and the same were extracted in the order of the CIT(A) the fact remains that before the completion of the assessment, the reasons recorded were not actually furnished to the assessee despite his letter dated 28/04/2010, therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts Ltd.(supra), we are of the opinion that the reassessment order passed without supply of reasons as recorded for reopening of the assessment is invalid and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the assessment under consideration as being invalid. o p /o p 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court on 14/09/2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1025 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... wini A Shah v. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 92 to 96 and ITA No. 2739/Ahd/2009 for the A.Ys. 2000-01, 2002-03 to 2006-07. Ld. DR argued that now provisions has been amended and excise duty is includible in the closing stock whereas ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A). It is the fact that section 145A has been amended with effect from 1-4-1999 and further adjustment to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (whatever name called actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of value is required.” Therefore, this issue is set aside and remitted back to the file of AO to re-calculate the closing stock as per section 145A of the Act. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1024 - ITAT PUNE
Concept of real income approved in the case of banking business - whether Assessee can offer his interest received from bad and doubtful debts (NPA) on actual basis as per RBI guidelines even though assessee is following mercantile systems of accounting - section 43D applicability - Held that:- We find that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT,”A” Bench, Pune, in the case of CIT, Cir 3, Nanded Vs. Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT PUNE].
-
2012 (9) TMI 1023 - ITAT PUNE
Addition made on account of sticky advances - Decided in favour of assessee - See ACIT Versus Osmanabad Janta Sah. Bank Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT PUNE]
Accrual of interest - interest on FDRs with NDCC Bank accrued with period of time - Held that:- there is no dispute to the factual position that the NDCC Bank is restrained from carrying on routine business transactions, inter alia, which pertains to accepting fresh deposits and/or repaying existing deposits, etc. As a consequence, it is quite clear that there is a genuine impairment on the part of the assessee to earn the impugned amount of interest on FDRs with NDCC Bank. In this background, the ultimate direction of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer may tax the interest on accrual basis, whenever NDCC Bank is allowed by the Reserve Bank of India to repay deposits or interest to the assessee, is reasonable and cannot be faulted with. We accordingly find no justifiable reasons to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the amoun
Addition made on account of payment of ex-gratia - Held that:- We find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and then allow the deduction subject to payment having been made. We uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.
Addition on leave encashment - Held that:- The account statement shows that the expenditure claimed and actually paid during the year which reflects the liability arising during the year itself and it has been actually paid. In this view of above factual matrix, we find that the CIT(A) made no error in deleting the addition
-
2012 (9) TMI 1022 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - Held that:- If there is no evidence that the builder has combined the flats and the adjoining flats are combined by the customers, there was no reason to compute the built up area as required for clause (i) of section 80-IB(10) of the Act after combining the flats. In this view of the matter, we are therefore, of the opinion that the built-up of the flats have to be considered independently, as rightly concluded by the CIT(A). If so done, in the present case, we find that the condition prescribed in clause (c) to section 80-IB(10) of the Act is met. Therefore, on this aspect, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1021 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Expenditure incurred by the Assessee company on foreign education and travel of son of the Managing Director of the Company - Allowable business expenditure - Held that:- The purpose of Section 40A is to prevent the abuse of fund by the company for personal interest. There should be dividing line between personal interest and the interest of the company. A personal interest means the expenditure incurred not for the purpose of company but for own interest of the office bearers of the company or their sons and relatives but in case an expenditure is incurred by the company to send someone for training or higher education and after returning back in pursuance to contractual obligation, such person joins the company itself, then in such circumstances, it may not be treated as expenditure for personal reason because of relationship with an office bearer. The expenses incurred should be for the purpose of the company which has been benefitted because of training and higher education imparted to the person concerned. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 1020 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ee. Whatever investment it had made, had come down to ‘0’ by the end of the relevant previous year. If the claim of the assessee that investments were made in debt oriented mutual funds, is correct, and if the gains arising on sale thereof had been offered to tax, then of course, in our opinion, such investments could not be treated as giving rise to tax-free income. Section 14A will have no applicability. In our opinion whether the investments were only in debt oriented mutual funds which yielded no income other than capital gains, needs to be verified and only if this is proved to be correct, application of Section 14A can be ruled out. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 27. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on Monday, the 24th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1019 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... stration and for this purpose he relied on the following judgements a) Fifth Generation Education Society v. CIT, 185 ITR 634 (All) b) M.K. Nambyar SAARC Law Charitable Trust v. Union of India & Ors., 269 ITR 556 (Del) c) Medical Accident Prevention Society v. CIT, 278 ITR 165 (Ker.) d) Kasyapa Veda Research Foundation v. CIT, 131 ITD 370 (Cochin) 6. The AR also relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal which support assessee's case a) M/s. Saraswathi Swetha Educational Trust v. DIT(E), in ITA No. 495/Mds/2011 dated 9.2.2012. b) Sri Abhaya Anjaneya Charitable Trust v. DIT(E) in ITA NO. 1689/Hyd/2011 dated 18.3.2011. 7. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of the DIT(E) to consider the application for registration u/s. 12A of the Act in the light of above decisions and decide the issue in accordance with the law. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1018 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... leted. 19. We have heard both the parties, perused the record and gone through the orders o the authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Raghavendra Rao has also submitted in the paper book the details of contract receipts and profit & loss account. He also reiterated that no income is earned by the JV and the income has arisen to the members individually. In these circumstances, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify whether the corresponding incomes as per the allotment of JV agreements has been offered in the individual (constituents) hands and, if so, it cannot be taxed in the hands of the JV, namely, the assessee. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. To sum up, appeal of the revenue and the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 21st September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1016 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... its proceedings were completed u/s 133A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A).” 6. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee who is one of the director of the Company M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., had already made a disclosure of ₹ 75,00,000/- with regard to himself and his associate concerns in order to escape the wrath of the penalty provisions u/s 271 AAA of the Act. Since, the facts and circumstances of the case of the Company M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., is identical with that of the assessee’s case for both the assessment years, following the decision held in the case of M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO u/s 271 (1) ( c ) read with section 274 of the Act. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in his favour. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07-09-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1015 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... f section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and (iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income (3)……. (4) …….” 9. From the facts and circumstances of the case before us, we are of the considered view that the disclosure made by the director of the appellant company during the search proceedings on behalf of himself, sister concerns and group concerns will entitle the appellant company who is one amongst the group concerns, to claim benefit u/s 271AAA of the Act though its proceedings were completed u/s 133A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1014 - ITAT JODHPUR
Reopening of assessment - claim for deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- Assessee furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and the Assessing Officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, in the present case, reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is definitely a change of opinion which is not maintainable and therefore, the re assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was not valid.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1013 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - no penalty could be levied merely on disallowance of a deduction, which was made by taking a different view.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1012 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of travelling expenses - Held that:- We find that the addition on account of travelling expenses was totally based on surmises and conjectures. Assessing Officer has not brought on record any cogent basis as to why this expenditure was to be disallowed. It is not the case that expenditure was considered to be bogus or any shortcoming in the vouchers in this regard was observed by the Revenue.
Under the circumstances, we hold that estimated addition without any basis cannot be sustained. In this regard, the case law relied upon by the assessee in the case of the ITO vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd [1981 (11) TMI 77 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A] is germane. In this case, it was held that the travelling expenses and salary expenses, addition made on estimate basis cannot be justified. Moreover, disallowance is also not justified merely on the ground that similar disallowance was made in the previous year. Accordingly, in the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedent, we hold that the addition on account of travelling expenses is liable to be deleted and hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
............
|
