|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1011
... ...
... ... ..... inst the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the assessee's own case, being Income Tax Appeal No.3625 of 2010 decided on 7th July 2011. 2. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1010
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT-A AO had allowed the deduction u/s 80IB(10) without examining whether all the conditions prescribed by the Section were satisfied - Held that:- The assessee had filed the details and calculations about the built-up area of the residential units. It would be unreasonable to hold that the Assessing Officer ignored those details. Moreover the statutory auditors had clearly mentioned the dates of approval of the lay out plan of the residential colonies. The Assessing Officer was thus made aware of the dates on which the approvals were granted in respect of each of the four housing projects.
The determination of the question as to when the undertaking commenced development and construction, in the absence of any statutory prescription, has to be decided in a pragmatic and reasonable way. It would have been an entirely different issue had there been a statutory prescription of what would be the date of commencement of construction or development. It is certainly a debatable issue on which more than one plausible view is reasonably possible and merely because the Assessing Officer has taken one plausible view, it cannot be said that the assessment is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue - Decided against revenue
-
2012 (9) TMI 1009
... ...
... ... ..... he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Saviour Charitable Trust v. CIT (7 Taxmann.com 34) (Delhi). He also relied on 23 SOT 42. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR strongly opposed the arguments of the AR and relied on the order of the DIT(E). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case an absolute power has been given to the author/ founder to revoke the Trust Deed according to his wishes. In our opinion, it will affect the very existence of the trust itself. As such we are not inclined to uphold the arguments of the assessee's counsel. However, as conceded by the AR on making appropriate amendment to the Trust Deed to the satisfaction of the DIT(E), the registration will be granted. Accordingly, the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the DIT(E) for fresh consideration. 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 1008
... ...
... ... ..... bject clause contains the clause that the activities of the trust and its objects will not be confined to India. To grant approval under section 80G of the Act, the DIT (E) can examine whether or not the conditions set out in section 80G(5) (i) to (v) are satisfied. If the assessee has satisfied the above conditions, there is no reason to deny the approval under section 80G of the Act by the DIT (E). 10. In the circumstances, we direct the DIT (E) to consider the amendment and decide the issue in accordance with law. 11. The reason for denial of registration u/s. 12AA and approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) by DIT(E) is not justified. We, therefore, remit the entire issue back to the file of the DIT(E) who shall reconsider the assessee's application for registration u/s. 12AA and approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and decide the issue afresh. 12. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1007
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A. - Held that:- Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on the income which was included by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act.
Disallowance of expenditure - addition on the basis of seized loose - Held that:- The documents being belonging to the assessee, the assessee is in a better position to explain the same and assessee chooses not to explain the same, therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted on the face of it. The set off can be granted only if assessee is able to explain that the amount shown on the debit side are the expenditure either incurred for the purpose of business or have been incurred to earn the amount which is shown in the credit side. Here it may be the contention of the assessee that amount has come to the credit from various entities and paid also by way of various entries to various parties, therefore, aggregate of the credit entries alone cannot be taken as income as the same should considered to be credits by earlier debit entries. However, in absence of dates of the receipts and payments such claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Such claim can be taken into account only when the dates of the credit and debit entries are known. What is known in the present case is opening balance of ₹ 46.00 lacs as on 5/9/2005 and the dates of other entries are not known.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - Income for which the set off /telescoping was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal - Held that:- The nature of credit as well as debit entries has not been determined to take home the point that what is depicted on the seized paper is the income of the assessee. It is not the case of the department that the parties mentioned therein cannot be approached to determine the character of the amount stated in the seized documents. No such attempt has been made by the department to ascertain the character of receipts as well as payments. Therefore, the addition itself is only on the basis of presumption laid down in section 132(4). Further, for the purpose of levy of penalty it is to be established that what is assessed is the concealed income of the assessee. The amounts stated on the seized document has also not been related to any cash or assets seized during the course of search. In absence of any such material and cogent evidence that the amount stated in the seized document is in the nature of income, we do not consider it just and proper to uphold the concealment penalty on the addition. We may also mention that Ld. CIT(A) has clearly given the set off of a sum of ₹ 79,70,191/- to the assessee on account of additional income declared by the assessee in the return field in response to section 153A of the Act, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected such claim of the assessee. Since we have held that it is not a fit case where levy of concealment penalty cannot be justified, the alternative claim of the assessee has became academic that penalty should not be levied with respect to amounts which has been held to be set off by Ld. CIT(A).
-
2012 (9) TMI 1006
... ...
... ... ..... e consideration as per this agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly the addition because of the deeming provisions does not ipso facto attract the penalty u/s 271( 1) (c). Hence in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro products Pvt.Ltd (supra), the penalty levied u/s 271( 1)( c ) is not sustainable. The same is deleted. 5. In the instant case also the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the amount of difference between the sale consideration shown by the assessee and the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Renu Hingorani (supra). Respectfully following the Order of the Tribunal in the case of Renu Hingorani (supra), we cancel the penalty of ₹ 86,930/- levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1005
Claim u/s 10B declined - delay on part of the assessee in filing the ‘return’ under section 139(1) - Held that:- The substantive ground for rejecting assessee’s deduction claim is only that of delay of one month(supra) in filing ‘return’, we are of the opinion that the assessee has successfully explained the delay. Accordingly we hold that the assessee has filed a valid return under section 139(1) of the ‘Act’. Accordingly, the assessee is also held entitled for getting the deduction under section 10B of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1003
Deduction u/s. 10A before setting off unabsorbed business losses/depreciation carry forward losses from the earlier years allowed
Transfer pricing adjustment - comparability - Held that:- We find that the grievance of both the parties are against exclusion of the super profit making comparables and the low profit making comparables from the list of comparables adopted by the TPO. We find that the CIT(A) has not given any reasoning for such exclusion.
As far as Infosys is concerned, we find that it satisfies the turnover filter, as its turnover is 6,850 crores as against the assessee’s turnover of 8.29 crores. So the said company is rightly excluded from the list of comparables. But however, as regards other comparables with both high margin and low margin companies, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) ought to give reasoning before excluding the same. As the order of the CIT(A) is silent as regards the reason for their exclusion, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration
-
2012 (9) TMI 1002
... ...
... ... ..... es that the petitioners are already in appeal. He further does not dispute that in terms of the mandate contained in the sanctioned scheme, the concessions referred to therein have to be considered by the respondent, and the demand raised against the petitioner is de-hors such consideration. It is, thus, agreed that the respondents will give effect to the mandate of the scheme by considering the issue of concessions, as set out in the scheme dated 14.01.2003 read with the order dated 07.08.2006 and a fresh demand would be raised, if any. In the meantime, the demand raised and which is impugned in appeal, would be kept in abeyance. The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1001
... ...
... ... ..... tion “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 2,48,94,452/- on assets of sale and lease back transaction?” To be heard with Tax Appeal No.1048 of 2010.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1000
... ...
... ... ..... issue in dispute to the AO to decide the same as directed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned orders. Keeping in view the powers of the ld. CIT(A), mentioned in section 251(A) as reproduced above, we are of the view that the ld. first appellate authority has wrongly issued direction to the AO in all the five cases to complete assessments in view of his direction which is in violation of section 251(A) of the Act, because the power to ‘set aside’ has been withdrawn vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 01.06.2001 as reproduced above. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, we cancel the impugned orders in all these five appeals with the direction to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue in dispute himself afresh under law after giving opportunity to the respective parties. 5. In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 999
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- There is no material on record to suggest that this issue of inflated expenditure in the final accounts in comparison to the accounts found in the floppy was either considered, verified, examined or adjudicated by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to take a divergent view from the view taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Shri Akhtar Hussain Khan [2011 (7) TMI 1204 - ITAT MUMBAI] is the author of the said decision. Hence, following the earlier order of this tribunal, we decide the issue of validity of revision order passed under Section 263 against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... e guidelines of the RBI. The banks have to invest the SLR amounts in the Government security bonds and shares etc. The lending policy of the banks is regulated by the RBI. The banks cannot keep any liquid cash both utilized and un-utilised. The share capital amounts of the bank have also to be invested in SLR proportionate to the percentage fixed by the RBI and rest of the amount is to be utilized for public lending. Therefore, for a financial institution the share capital also would assume the character of working capital. In that view any amount utilized by the bank towards issuance of share capital is a deductible expenditure. In the light of the above observations the order of the Appellate court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to find out whether the share capital amounts have been utilized for public lending, if it is so, the Assessing Officer to allow deductions otherwise not. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.
-
2012 (9) TMI 997
... ...
... ... ..... eping in view that the decision relied on by the Assessing Officer in CIT vs. Presidency Co -op. Housing Society Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 321 (Born.) has already been considered and distinguished by Their Lordships in the case of Sind Co-operative Housing Society supra, by observing that the issue of mutuality was neither argued or considered, we respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court hold that the amount received by the assessee are subject to principle of mutuality and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the finding of the Id. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer” 4.1 Following the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, cited supra, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 5 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 21st of Sept 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 996
... ...
... ... ..... 7; 51,86,074/-. 16. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that Assessing Officer has made this disallowance by noting that proper evidence regarding the claim of the assessee was not submitted. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has also confirmed this order. On the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, interest of justice, will be served if the issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. The Assessing Officer shall consider the issue in light of the submission in this regard, after giving assessee proper opportunity of being heard. We hold and direct accordingly. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and Cross objection filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/9/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 995
... ...
... ... ..... d his order. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Ground of Cross objection raised by the assessee is with respect to the action of CIT (A) in confirming addition of ₹ 2,99,950/-. CIT (A) has given a finding that the amount of ₹ 2,99,950/- comprised of loan of ₹ 2 lacs from Arvindbhai Vekariya and of ₹ 99,950/- from Kailashbhai Kotadiya. Both the lenders were summoned u/s. 131 but did not appear before the A.O. and they are not assessed to Income tax. The assessee could not discharge onus cast upon him to establish the genuineness of loan. The assessee could not prove before us the genuineness of loan. In view of these facts we find no reason to interfere to the order of CIT (A) on this point. We therefore, confirm his order. In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 7-9-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 994
... ...
... ... ..... any inquiry. He did not try to verify identity of the creditors. Similarly, the assessee has pointed out that he has sufficient capital in the account of Hotel Karlo Kastle from where he withdrew the amount and introduce in the capital account of Hotel Silver Shine. The Assessing Officer remained passive to this material also. Ld. First Appellate Authority not only inquired this account but also directed the assessee to submit other material for cross-verification. In such given circumstances, we do not find any material on the record which can persuade us to set aside the finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. The simple reason for this that Assessing Officer has not taken any step for collecting any material in order to disprove the claim made by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 993
Eligibility for deduction u/s.80IB(10) - partial completion - Held that:- 8th building renamed as Type G should not be confused with originally conceived Type G in commencement certificate dated 26.03.2004 as clarified above. It is pertinent to mention here that originally assessee conceived Type G on left hand side subsequently it was relocated on right hand side as Type G but same should not be confused because the locations are different. Initially it was on the left hand side subsequently it was shifted to right hand side. Assessee has completed construction of ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ buildings vide completion certificate No.BCO/14/6/264 dated 14.03.2006 while remaining ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘I’ were completed vide completion certificate No.BCO/6/OC/57 dated 07.12.2007. Issue of relocated Type ‘G’ is not before us. In these circumstances, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of building Types A, B, C, D, E, F and I, completed in two stages as discussed above. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.
-
2012 (9) TMI 991
... ...
... ... ..... sallowance of expenses in relation to exempt income under section 14A is required to be made as per Rule 8D. However, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra), have held that Rule 8D would apply only from 2008-09 and in respect of prior years it was held that expenses both direct and indirect have to be disallowed on a reasonable basis after hearing the assessee. In this case CIT(A) has directed the AO to consider the disallowance in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (supra). We therefore see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). However, we direct the AO to make disallowance after necessary examination in the light of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.9.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... ccordingly allowed the claim of the assessee. The orders of the Tribunal in assessment year 2004-05 and 1996-97 have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in judgments dated 6.7.2011 in Income tax appeal No.2415 of 10 and 3177 of 10. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the orders of the Tribunal on both points i.e. exhibition activity being incidental to the main object and proper and separate account book being maintained by the assessee. Thus the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (supra). We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) allowing relief to the assessee and the same is upheld. As we have allowed the claim on merit, we do not consider it necessary to go into the alternate argument of the assessment being illegal on the ground of non-service of notice under section 143(2) in time. 6. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2012
............
|
