|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 964 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 2006-07 as assessee was claiming deduction under section 10A from assessment year 2001-02 and further with reference to other adjustments made under section 40(a)(ia) and transfer pricing, the matters are in its favour by various orders. Accordingly it was requested that the demand may be stayed. The Ld. DR supported the orders of AO. 3. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the assessee and is a fit case for grant of stay of demand. However considering the outstanding amount, assessee is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs on or before 17.09.2012 and balance of the demand is stayed till the disposal of the appeal or six months, whichever is earlier. The appeal stands posted on 15.10.2012 and issuance of notice is dispensed with as both the parties were informed in the open court. 4. In the result, stay application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th September 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 963 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of the assessment proceedings - Error in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) - Held that:- In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, in the assessment framed u/s 143(3), the issue of 10(23C)(iiiab) had been gone into and the AO, only initiated the reassessment proceedings, because he had taken a divergent view on the allowability of exemption. Since the issue was discussed in regular assessment proceedings and the AO did not stumble upon any evidence/material, which was not placed before him, the initiation cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 962 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... held that assessee is in the business of purchase/sale of shares, and while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) the loss of ₹ 1,51,21,196/-incurred on the sale/purchase of units has been treated as business loss. In view of the aforesaid facts, it can be stated that assessee is in the business of purchase and sale of shares. Once the purchase and sale of shares is held to be a business activity, the interest paid thereon has to be treated as business expenses in view of the Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Laxmi Agent (P.) Ltd. (supra). Thus following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble High Court, we are of the view that in the present facts of the case the interest expenses incurred by the assessee has to be treated as business expenses and no disallowance can be made u/s.14A. We accordingly direct the deletion of the disallowance made by A.O. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 961 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO 131 ITR 597 SC and the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of N. Seenappa v. CIT 163 ITR 253 (Karn) fully support the plea of the assessee in this regard. 33. Another reason given by the revenue authorities for upholding the aforesaid addition is that there is a practice of on-money prevailing in real estate transactions. In our view, without evidence on record, just on the basis of practice prevailing in the trade, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee. 34. We are, therefore, of the view that the sales figure as reflected in the trading account should be reduced by a sum of Q 83,60,865. 35. The AO is directed to recast the trading, profit & loss account as drawn by him with the modifications as stated in this order and work out the income of the assessee. 36. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 960 - ITAT COCHIN
Addition of freight payments u/s. 40(a)(ia) - amounts which have already been paid during the course of relevant previous year without deducting tax at source - Held that:- The assessee has filed a statement before us in both the cases, wherein the details of freight debited, freight paid and freight payable are given. In our view these facts require verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of both the assesses and restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the statement furnished by the assessee before the Bench and decide the issue by following the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Vishakapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM].
In the result, the appeals of the assesses are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 959 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Unexplained gifts - Held that:- We are of the view that genuineness of the gifts has been accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Appellate Tribunal. The identity and creditworthiness of the donors have also been accepted by both the authorities. These are questions of facts and there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities below and no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by both the authorities below has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The said finding of fact of both the authorities below cannot be interferred with by this Court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 958 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Additional income as deemed income u/s 69 & 69A - income from business and surrendered against the cash and excess stock found at the time of survey - rejection of the trading account
-
2012 (9) TMI 957 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d u/s 80IA in respective Captive Power Plant has been deleted. Be that it may be we are of the view that in respect of both the additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is not leviable keeping in view the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petrol Products Pvt. Ltd.” 6.1 The deletion of addition by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee was decisive. The Tribunal correctly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petrol Products Ltd. (322 ITR 158) that making incorrect claim by itself does not amount to concealment of income. When the quantum appeal itself was allowed and the deletions made were set aside, the whole basis which led to the imposition of penalty ceased to exist. In the circumstances, no ground could survive to sustain the penalty. 6.2 The present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law in the light of above position of facts. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 956 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - income declared in the returns of income filed in response to notice under s. 153A - Held that:- No addition is made by the AO over and above the income declared in the returns of income filed in response to notice under s. 153A as the expression "tax sought to be evaded" appearing in cl. (c) to s. 271(1) is to be understood as a difference between the income declared by the assessee in the return of income and the income finally assessed. After introduction of s. 153A w.e.f. 1st June, 2003, there is no specific penalty provision to deal with the assessments framed in consequence of search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act. In the present case, as the returned income and income assessed are the same, otherwise also, no penalty can be levied. We, therefore, hold that in all the appeals before us, the AO was not justified in levying the penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. We accordingly, delete the penalties levied by the AO in all the appeals for the abovementioned reasons. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 954 - ITAT DELHI
Exemption u/s 11 - franchisee fees received by the DPS Society from different satellite schools which are running under the name and logo Delhi Public School having different management than the DPS Society - denial of depreciation to assessee trust
-
2012 (9) TMI 953 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ation of gross profit. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.” 5.1 It was agreed by both the sides that this issue is similar to ground No.3 raised by the revenue in assessment year 2005-06. Both the sides agreed that this issue can be decided on similar lines as in assessment year 2005-06 wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee as per para 2.2.5 above and accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 5.2 In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is partly allowed and for the assessment year 2006-07 is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (9) TMI 952 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition being interest on unexplained investment - Held that:- A careful perusal of the orders on record would suggest that except for the impounded document and statement of partner, there was no further evidence with the Revenue to make addition. In fact document itself only suggested entry of Rs . 3,12,159/-. It was on the strength of the statement of the partner during the survey that the Revenue inflated such figure 10 times by adding zero. Statement of partner also suggested that it was his personal income and not that of firm. Thus entire statement was also not taken in its entirety. Further other than such statement, there was no further material available on record. In fact, the Tribunal recorded that from the document there was nothing to suggest that the entries pertained to loan and advances.
-
2012 (9) TMI 950 - SC ORDER
Addition u/s 68 - Cash Credit - Unexplained share application money - assessee has not been able to give satisfactory explanation in respect of certain expenditure or where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the AO can treat the same as undisclosed income and add to the income of the assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 948 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... lip;……………………………………………………………………… (4)……………………………………………………………………………. (5) any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes;” 6.1. On careful perusal of the above, we are of the view that since the act has not specified that the assessee himself has to use the said property in order to get exemption u/s 2(ea) of the WT Act we find no infirmity in the orders of ld. CIT(A) to be interfered with. Therefore, we confirm the same and dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 7. In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 947 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sessee to the benefit of the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab). Even in the case of IIM the grant equal to 36.42 was held to be substantial finance by the Government. 22. In the instant case, the grant available was 56.86 , much higher than the grants accepted to be substantial by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 23. With these observations and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we do not intend to disturb the findings of the CIT(A), which we sustain and as a consequence thereof, reject the appeal of the Revenue. 24. It is strange and interesting to point out that this is a classic case, where the assessee has made inputs towards finances, from its own source and saved tax payers money, but, the AO, in such a case has objection, i.e. why the assessee did not use the tax payers money. 25. The appeal filed by the Revenue is thus dismissed. Held accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 26th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 945 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation on sale and lease back contracts and lease contracts disallowed - Held that:- In the absence of proof of suppliers and there being no attempt on the part of the assessee to establish the said fact that there was in fact a sale in its favour, rightly, the authorities rejected the case of the assessee. Mere production of lease agreement and copies of invoices indicating alleged sale in favour of the assessee would not be a sufficient ground to grant the relief. A perusal of the documents relied on by the assessee clearly show that the assessee could not in any manner substantiate its case that there had been purchase of machineries for the purpose of effecting lease in favour of the lessees. As rightly pointed out by the authorities below, the transactions were purely financial transactions and they were given the name of the lease transactions through the lease agreements. There being no error in the reasoning given by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in rejecting the case of the assessee, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal.
-
2012 (9) TMI 942 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and submitted before me on 25- 3-2010 that both the grounds are covered by my appellate order dt 31-3-2009 for A Y 2006-07. In earlier assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 to A.Y. 2005-06, this issue has been decided by me in favour of the appellant vide appellate order No.CIT(A)- XVI/DCIT.10/059/07-08 and No.CIT(A)-XVI/DCIT.10/0220/06- 07 dt. 28-01-2009 and 31-3-2009 respectively. Since the facts are identical, this ground is decided in favour of the appellant.” 5. At the time of hearing both the parties agreed that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in assessee’s own case for the Asst. Year 2004-05 vide ITA No.1032/Ahd/2009 and ITA Nos.1930 & 1824/Ahd/2009 for Asst. Years 2005-06 & 2006-07. Following the same, we dismiss the appeals of Revenue for both the years. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 21.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 940 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he net profit declared by the assessee for computing book profit for the purpose of determining the allowable deduction of remuneration payable to the partners under S. 40(b).” 10. In the case of ACIT vs. Sheth Brothers, Rajkot, the co-ordinate Bench has held as under - “Whole income embedded in the net profit as appearing in the P & L a/c of the assessee-firm is to be taken into consideration for allowing deduction of remuneration paid to partners under S. 40(b) without excluding the interest income which formed part of the book profit.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions of the co-ordinate Bench, we are of the view that the interest income which is part of the Profit and loss which has been taxed as business income, need to be reduced for calculating the remuneration payable to partners u/s. 40(b). We accordingly delete the addition made by the A.O. and allow the appeal of the assessee. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 937 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... 0 322 ITR (St.)4 . In the present case also, after revoking the prohibitory order u/s 132(3) of the Act on 13.4.2009, no fresh prohibitory order was passed and the Panchnama dated 3.2.1999 did not show that the search remained incomplete or was continued to be completed on any subsequent date in the close proximity or in continuity. In the instant case, nothing was done on 13.4.1999 except merely preparing the Panchnama and the search commenced at 2.30 PM which was concluded at 3.00 PM. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the said exercise would not extend the time limit for passing an order of block assessment. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the Department and dismiss the same. . 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 12.09.2012 )
-
2012 (9) TMI 936 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Computation of capital gain - Held that:- The stamp duty rate for a big and small plot is not different. Hence, in our considered opinion, the adjustment made by Ld. CIT(A) by reducing land area to the extent of 35% is not justified. We reverse the same..
The entire share of the assessee in the fair market value of the land to the extent of 18.10% should be considered for working out the capital gain of the assessee and as and when the assessee receives any amount out of the dispute amount of ₹ 1,78,16,427/-, in that event, such actual receipt should be brought to tax in its totality without any reduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition but in the present year, the cost of acquisition cannot be reduced. We hold accordingly.
............
|
