|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 989 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Search Assessment u/s 153A - In the return of income filed by the assessee u/s 153A, the return of income was less than the income declared by the assessee in the original return filed us 139(1) of the Act. - Assessment to be made on the basis of ITR filed u/s 153A or u/s 139(1) - AO observed the excess claim of depreciation in the ITR filed u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- if the A.O. started with the amount of income declared by the assessee u/s 139(1) then there is no excess depreciation claimed by the assessee in this amount of income declared by it in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) - A.O. has to start the computation of income in the assessment completed by him u/s 153A with the income declared by the assessee in the return filed by it u/s 153A and after this, he can make the adjustment on account of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee
Decision in the case of M/S. AIRWIDE EXPRESS CARGO VERSUS. ITO, WARD 7 (1) , & VICE VERSA [2011 (10) TMI 631 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], relied upon.
Disallowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) - A.O. has discussed disallowance in respect of the claim of the assessee regarding bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) but while computing the income on the assessment order, he has made one addition with regard to excess depreciation. - HELD THAT:- Bad debt is allowable in the year of write off of bad debt and the assessee is not required to establish that the debt have actually become bad. Thus, no disallowance of bad debts is called for but this fact has to be ascertained by the A.O. as to whether any addition on this account was in fact made by the A.O. or not and if such addition was made then the same should be deleted.
Decision in the case of TRF. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT], relied upon.
-
2012 (9) TMI 987 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... Virgin Creations (supra), disallowance of ₹ 19,99,800/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unjustified, inasmuch as the assessee has deposited the corresponding tax deducted at source before the due date of filing of the return of income specified u/s 139(1) of the Act for assessment year in question. 10. As a consequence, the ultimate decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition is upheld, albeit on different grounds. Resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Coming to the Cross objection filed by the assessee, the same supports the order of the CIT(A). Since we have upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of payment to labour u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous. 12. In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 27th September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 984 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s of the earlier Benches (supra) on similar issues. o p /o p 7.2. In an over all consideration of the facts of the assessee's case narrated above and also in conformity with the latest findings of the earlier Bench (supra), we are of the firm view that if the disallowance is restricted/sustained to the extent of 12.5 on account of the bogus purchases, it would meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly. In essence, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.” o p /o p 7. In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that disallowance in the instant case also be restricted to the extent of 12.5 of the bogus purchases made by assessee during the year under appeal. We hold accordingly. o p /o p 8. Ground Nos.5, 7, 8 and 9 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. o p /o p 9. In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in open Court on 21.09.2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 983 - HIGH COURT- ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... llery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded in this behalf in the books of account maintained by the assessee for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, the excess amount could be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 13. In the present case the Tribunal did not commit any error in following M/s Dy. CIT Vs. M/s Rohtas Projects Ltd., Lucknow (supra). The principle of law has now been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Sergam Cinema v. Commissioner of Income- Tax (supra). 14. In the present case the AO did not record any findings on the entries recorded in books of accounts, nor rejected the accounts books before making the reference to the DVO. 15. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find that any question of law arise for consideration in this appeal by the High Court. 16. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 982 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ial manner can be borne out in the facts of the case of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the learned CIT(A) in holding that even applying ratio of Shambhu Investment (supra) the income of the appellant is to be assessed as business income since the intention of the appellant is to exploit property commercially. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed and the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.” Both the parties are agreed and accepted that the facts are identical and the case law cited above is squarely applicable. Therefore, we follow the Coordinate ‘A’ Bench decision in case of M/s. Vardhman Infrastructure P. Ltd. (supra) and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal and uphold the order of the CIT(A). 6. In the combined result, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and the Assessee’s C.Os. are allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 21.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 981 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ven a restrictive meaning and must be given its natural meaning or the meaning ascribed to it in section 2(24). Hence, an assessee who is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) can claim the benefit thereof for the purpose of income deemed to be chargeable to tax under section 68.” 5. Considering the above discussion and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that when the assessee is entitled for exemption of income u/s. 10(23C) of the IT Act, the addition made u/s. 68 would also be covered by the same exemption and accordingly, the appeals of the Revenue would not be maintainable in the present form. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee. In view of the above, there is no need to decide the additions on merits because it would be academic in nature. 6. In the result, both the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 980 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that depreciation is not allowed on goodwill? - Held NO . See CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2012 (9) TMI 979 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment u/s 153A - Registration u/s.12A denied - proof of charitable activities - Held that:- As examined the said satisfaction note very closely and found that the impugned reasons mentioned by the AO are silent in so far as any AY Specific- Incriminating-Information (ASII) or others ie unaccounted or undisclosed or hidden information to the revenue by the assessee. In our opinion, the impugned satisfaction note is very general one for six years. It is surprising to note that the AO has narrated some information against the Mr Navale HUF, which is not relevant for the present assessee. In the process, the AO totally missed the requirements of the law ie only the AY with the pending assessments and the AY with the AY specific incriminating documents/ transactions or seized asset should only be reopened under the provisions of the first proviso to section 153A of the Act and not otherwise. Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 977 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ly disclosed in the Profit & Loss account drawn on 31.3.2007. In the case of the CIT vs. Suman Paper and Board Ltd. 2009 314 ITR 119 (Guj.) an observation has been made that manufacturing and sale of Board paper and craft paper happened to be the only source of income of the assessee, therefore the amount disclosed consequence upon the search partakes the character of business income and eligible for the deduction u/s.80IB/80IA of the I.T.Act. In the present case, the assessee has admitted that the impugned amount was part of the sale consideration received in cash at the time of booking of flats and, therefore, the amount had direct and proximate connection with the normal business of construction activity, hence eligible for the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the I.T.Act. Because of the factual as also legal aspect of the case, we hereby confirm the finding of Learned CIT(Appeals) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 975 - ITAT MUMBAI
Allowability of depreciation u/s 32 on the commercial right of ‘marketing network’ - Held that:- Assessee acquired the marketing network of Jyothi Industries by which the assessee got access to the marketing network of Jyothi Industries consisting of representative, infrastructure, customer lists, marketing strategies etc. Considering the commonality of the facts of the issue, assessee’s acquisition of distribution network is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act and therefore, the issue under consideration stands covered in favour of the assessee.
Allowability of depreciation on the goodwill - Held that:- It is a settled position that the ‘goodwill’ is an intangible asset entitled for the depreciation. Considering the above said nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for depreciation u/s 32 in respect of the goodwill acquired by the assessee vide the agreement dated 1.3.2000 placed at page 39 of the paper book. Accordingly, ground no. 2 is allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 974 - ITAT COCHIN
Disallowance of loss on revaluation of the securities - when the taxpayer valued the securities on the basis of the realizable value could it be allowed as loss in the absence of the copies of the balance-sheet of the respective company? - Held that:- The RBI issued guidelines to value to unsecured shares on the basis of YTM, i.e. yield to maturity method adopted for valuation of securities. The Kerala High Court has also found that YTM rates have been put out by the PDAI / FIMMDA at periodical intervals. Therefore, when the taxpayer revalued the asset on the basis of the guideline issued by the RBI at realizable value i.e. YTM method suggested by RBI, the taxing authority cannot find fault with taxpayer.
As observed by Kerala High Court, the assessing authority has not come out with any suggestion / formula for computation of market value of unquoted shares. It is also not the case of the revenue that the guideline issued by the RBI for valuation is irrational. In these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Nedungadi Bank Ltd (2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA High Court) and Lord Krishna Bank Ltd (2010 (10) TMI 860 - Kerala High Court) is applicable in the case of the present tax payer also. Directed to allow the notional loss claimed by the taxpayer on revaluation of the securities as deduction while computing the total income.
-
2012 (9) TMI 973 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Held that:- It is not disputed that the assessee firm has a total capital of ₹ 212 crores. It is also an undisputed fact that for the year under consideration, the net profit available for appropriation was to the tune of ₹ 30.41 crores whereas the amount given as interest free loan is only to the tune of ₹ 21.95 crores. In our considerate view, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.,(2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) squarely apply on the facts of the case. We, therefore, reverse the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition
Disallowance of expenses as Brand Development expenses and professional fees for Brand Development - Held that:- We find that the assessee has not created any tangible or intangible assets of enduring nature by incurring such Brand development expenses. In our considerate view, such expense is an integral part of the profit earning process of the assessee firm and not for an acquisition of an asset or a right of permanent in nature. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Empire Jute Co. (1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court), the Brand development expenses incurred by the assessee firm are revenue in nature therefore we direct the AO to allow the same
-
2012 (9) TMI 972 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... om a different angle, i.e. some of the flats exceeded 1000 sq. ft. this issue has been deal with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti J V v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255 (Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01.04.2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department, as the flats whose measurements were taken to be exceeding 1000 sq. ft. included the balcony, which had to be excluded for the measurement. In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2435/Mum/2010 is allowed the appeal filed by the department in ITA No. 2163/Mum/2010 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 05/09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 971 - KERALA HIGH COURT
TDS u/s 194A - Held that:- It is for the petitioners to establish their status as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies by obtaining and producing the relevant certificate from the competent authority, as mentioned hereinbefore. It is also open for the petitioners to opt to produce the relevant records before the Income Tax authorities as well, to establish their status and credentials, that there is no lapse in fulfilling the objective as Primary Agricultural Credit Societies so as to absolve from further proceedings at the hands of the Income Tax Department, in relation to Section 194A and Section 200(3) of the Act.
So as to enable the petitioners to pursue such exercise, further proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If the petitioners fail to produce the certificates in the manner as specified hereinbefore (with reference to the 'second proviso' to Section 2(oa) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act), it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps in connection with the requirements of Section 194A and Section 200(3) of the Act.
-
2012 (9) TMI 970 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l by its order dated 24.9.2009 held that if the amount of ₹ 40,02,180/- is held to be bogus expenditure, then it can be brought to tax only in that year when the expenditure was claimed viz. assessment year 1993-1994. In this case, the block period is from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.2002. Therefore, the bogus expenditure incurred, which is sought to be brought to tax was outside the block period. 6. We find that both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal have come to concurrent finding of fact that no material was found during the search on the basis of which it could be said that the liability to pay ₹ 40,02,180/- had ceased. In any event, the alleged bogus purchase having been made in the assessment year 1993-1994 i.e. outside the block period, it cannot be brought to tax in a block assessment covering the period from 1.4.1995 to 21.3.2002. In view of the above, question (e) does not raise any substantial question of law and the same is dismissed. 7. Question (f) was not pressed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 969 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Unexplained investment in purchase - Addition on the basis of Seized sale agreement - addition made only a photo copy and also not signed by the assessee - Held that:- No addition can be made on conjectures and surmises. As seen from the assessment order, the AO has adopted value of the property at the ₹ 7000/- per sq. yard on the date of transaction. For adopting such a valuation, the AO has not conducted any enquiry or brought any materials on record to show that the value of the property on the date of transaction was actually ₹ 7000 per sq. yard. On the other hand, the assessee has demonstrated with supporting evidence that the value of the land on the date of transaction was the rate mentioned in the registered sale deed and for which the property was sold.
The assessee has also produced sufficient evidence to show that there was dispute going on regarding the legal right over the property which also had an effect on the fair market value of the property. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee had filed his return f income for the assessment years under dispute much prior to the date of search declaring the purchase of land in question at the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deeds.
So far as the AO’s observations on the loose sheets recovered from the residence of Smt. Nalini Devi are concerned, the CIT (A) after duly examining them has given a conclusive finding that the assessee’s name has no where been mentioned in those documents nor the amount of ₹ 109.48 lakhs represents the expenditure incurred by Smt Nalini Devi. However, the amount was found to be the summary of the balance of various accounts operated by the family members of Smt. Nalini Devi. We find that the CIT (A) in his elaborate and well reasoned order has dealt with all these aspects and came to a finding on fact that the AO has made the addition purely on conjectures and surmises and not on the basis of any material or evidence brought on record. - Decided against revenue
-
2012 (9) TMI 968 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that:- Disallowance made by AO was based on hyper technical approach and also ignoring the essence of Section 14A(1). AO also ignored this fact that the assessee has capitalized substantial amount of interest paid on loans taken for investment and the same was not claimed as business expenses by the assessee. Therefore, the apportionment on a pro rata basis was improper in the absence of anything brought by the Assessing Officer to establish a nexus between the expenses incurred and the exempted income earned on the investment which was a paramount requirement for making a disallowance u/s 14A(1).
Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not proper and justified and he limited the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 68,385/-. We are unable to see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
-
2012 (9) TMI 967 - ITAT MUMBAI
Levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - applicable rate on capital gain - Held that:- Assessee has committed an inadvertent error in the return of income to charge the tax @ 10% in stead of applicable rate of tax @ 30% on short term capital gains shown by the assessee as assessee has not paid STT on share transactions. Hence, assessee has not concealed its income or furnished wrong particulars of facts. Accordingly, provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, are not applicable. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 966 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nterest u/s 201(1A). 3. The CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd. Vs. CIT, 293 ITR 226.” 15. We have heard the arguments of both the parties, perused the record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that ground No. 1 raised by the assessee that the non-resident is not liable to tax u/s 115E a(1) of the IT Act, has not been dealt with by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has failed to consider this ground. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate upon the ground raised by the assessee with respect to the liability to tax in the case of nonresident u/s 115E a(1) and decide the issue in accordance with law. At this stage, we refrain from going into the grounds raised by the assessee. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 14/09/2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 965 - ITAT CHENNAI
Unexplained credits - Held that:- Capital account shown in the statement of affairs was only a balancing figure. Even if the assessee’s version that three bank accounts had to be excluded for reconciling his capital account, is accepted, there is still a difference of ₹ 6,68,954/-. As pointed out by the learned D.R., there is also an anomaly with regard to total of the balance in the bank account. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires a re-visit by the A.O. A.O. has to consider the statements of affairs as on 31.3.2006 and 31.3.2007 for arriving at any deficit or introduction in the capital account during the relevant previous year, taking into account the profit for the year. Assessee shall co-operate with the A.O. and file details of the work-out for arriving at the correct difference, if any, in capital account.
............
|
