|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 438 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Time limit for initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD - The act nowhere specifically prescribes any time limit or limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD or for recording of satisfaction before taking action under that provision - Held that:- Following the decision in case of CIT, Ludhiana v. Mridula, Prop. M/s Dhruv Fabrics(2010 (7) TMI 664), ITAT does not find any justification in initiation of block assessment proceedings u/s 158BD against the assessee after long gap of completion of the assessment in the case of persons searched u/s 132 or 132A. NO substantial question of law arises in this issue. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 437 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account of construction of building – Whether revenue can refer valuation of asset to DVO under any section other than section 55A & 269L under I.T. Act 1961 - The factory premises was referred to DVO by the ADIT – There was vast difference between the estimated cost of construction as per valuation report and the investment in construction of the factory as per the books - AO made an addition on the basis of as unaccounted investment u/s 69 – Held that:- As decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul Vs CIT (2003 (7) TMI 4) held that the DVO would not have jurisdiction to give a report to the AO under the Income Tax Act except in terms of Section 55A or to Competent Authority u/s 269L. Appeal decided in favour of assessee.
Addition on the basis of actual purchase consideration was more that registry rate of asset as unexplained investment u/s 69 – Assessee made investment in purchase of Land – AO found during search u/s 132 that, actual purchase consideration was higher than property registry rate - Addition was made on the basis of statements made by seller and broker that unaccounted payment received by them - Assessee contended that the statements were made under coercion which was endorsed by both the persons by retracting from their statements during cross examination - Held that:- The addition made merely on the basis of statements which allegedly given under pressure. The assessee filed sufficient material in support of retraction. There is no other material on record basis of which it can be said that on money was paid in transaction. Appeal decided in favour of assessee
Addition made on account of unaccounted cash u/s 69A – During course of Search cash seized by AO from assessee residence - The assessee filed cash flow statement without supporting with evidence – The assessee could not maintain the personal book account - Held that:- No one has appeared before us even proper notice has been served on the assessee’s legal heir. Assessee submitted before the AO cash was found withdrawal made by him as a Director from the company. As per balance sheet submitted before the A.O., the assessee had shown hardly cash balances. Appeal decide in favour of revenue.
Addition on account of household valuables - Assessee did not submit any explanation during the course of search u/s 132 & assessment proceeding - The assessee had not admitted the ownership of these valuable items - Held that:- It is the primary duty of the assessee to explain the source of things/valuables found during the course of search. Assessee even did not file any evidence regarding purchase of these household. Appeal decide in favour of revenue.
Disallowance on account of Interest on deposit – The A.O. has noticed interest free advances whereas the assessee claims interest expenditure on deposit – Held that:- As the advance given prior to 3 years under year under consideration. In past, it appears that there was no disallowance under this head made by the A.O. Further, the A.O. has not established the nexus between interest free advances and interest bearing loans taken. Therefore appeal decides in favour of assessee.
Addition on account of household expenses – Assessee had not withdrawn any amount for household purposes – Held that:- It is undisputed that he was having independent establishment for running the kitchen at his house. The assessee had not withdrawn a single penny for household purposes. There is no evidence produced by the assessee that he had received food from factory canteen. Appeal decides in favour of revenue
-
2012 (9) TMI 436 - ITAT, DELHI
Addition on account of treating receipt as income - Assessee is engage in civil construction works – Receives capital & revenue grants from government - Follow cost plus method for revenue recognition - Held that:- Where the receipt is treated as revenue corresponding expenditure actually incurred wholly and exclusively for doing the work for which the revenue was received must be allowed. Appeal decided against revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 434 - ITAT MUMBAI
Computation of Arm's length price - disallowance for administration charges/rebate being reimbursement of expenses - Held that:- As admitted that there was no element of profit in the transactions of payments made by the assessee to The parent company Braitrim U.K (BUK) which in turn was paid by BUK to its retailers. This is an expenditure, incurred by the assessee, routed through BUK, necessarily to get new customers via BUK. The assessee further submitted that there was no dispute by the AO, on the factum of payment of commission by the assessee to BUK and BUK to its retailers, which is the reason, that the AO had infact, restricted the addition only to the amount determined by the DRP.
As seen from the reconciliation, that the assessee has recorded its expenditure on the basis of sales made by it to the manufacturers, whereas BUK has recorded them on the basis of invoices raised by them on the assessee, which is at a later date/time - As that the deduction allowed by the AO is on the basis of the direction of the DRP, which had based its findings on the amounts recorded in its books in the earlier year and the expenditure booked for the current year for which BUK raised invoices in the subsequent year, then there cannot be any reason for disallowance in the current year, because, the assessee, being a company, has to follow mercantile system of accounting and guided by the accounting standards, wherein the assessee has to record its expenditure of commission/discount at the time of making its sales, irrespective of the date of raising of invoice by BUK. - As the assessee submission of reconciliation had not been submitted before the DRP it would be just and reasonable if the assessment order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the DRP with the directions to consider the reconciliation statement - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 433 - ITAT, DELHI
Addition on account of prior period expense - Whether liability of earlier years has been crystallized in this year – Assessee calculation of interest based on simple interest while the bank charging at compounded interest - Bank debit the interest of earlier years in current year - Interest liability booked by assessee as prior period expense - Held that:- There would be some dispute or at least misunderstanding in the mind of the assessee about method of accounting the interest i.e. whether it should be simple interest or compound interest. The rate of tax for all these years remains the same. Therefore, following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd and vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd., assessee is entitled to deduct this amount in computing the income. Decision is in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 432 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Initiation of search and seizure u/s 132 - residential-cum-business premises - Held that:- Clause (c) of Section 132(1) concerns money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. In order to proceed under clause (c) there must be information with the authorizing authority relating to any person is in possession of money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of the Act, thus there are materials available on record for which the specified authority had reason to believe that the condition precedent to issue the warrant of authorization to conduct search and seizure operation in terms of Section 132 at the residential-cum-business premises of the petitioner existed, thus the warrant of authorization cannot be quashed - in favour of revenue.
Seizure of bullion, jewellery or valuable article of thing being stock-in-trade - Held that:- The Finance Act, 2003, has amended Section 132 to provide that any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing being stock-in-trade of the business, found as a result of search shall not be seized but the authorized officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-intrade. Thus, stock-in-trade of business cannot be seized during search and seizure operations conducted on or after June 1, 2003 - thus the seizure of jewellery being stock-in-trade by the authorized officer is wholly without authority of law and contrary to the statutory provision contained in proviso to Section 132 (1) (iii) and third proviso to Section 132(1) (v) - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 431 - ITAT, DELHI
Loan from creditor deemed as income u/s 68 – Weather assessee is under the obligation to prove source of sum deposited in the creditor’s bank account – Loan made by creditor through cheque - Credit entry shown in the bank statement of the assessee – AO contended that the source of the loan was sale of property - Assessee also submit PAN card, bank statement, copy of ITR for said year and proof of residential address and source of loan – Creditor receive an advance from another person to finance the loan to assessee – Held that:- It was not necessary that the amount advanced by the creditor had to be out of the current years income only, as the returned income of creditor shown off lesser income as compare to loan given to assessee. Bank statement of creditor clearly shows the deposit of said sum from another person. AO has neither conducted any inquiry, nor had any material been brought on record to doubt the source of the deposit entries in the creditor’s account. Assessee had duly discharged his onus of establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the creditor, as well as the genuineness of the transaction. The findings of fact recorded therein remained irrational. Decision against revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 430 - ITAT, DELHI
Disallowance on account of loss of derivatives – Assessee incurred loss on derivative transactions - Notification issued by the Central Govt. u/s 43(5) read with Rule 6 DDA, and 6 DDB, on 25.1.2006 - Treated derivative transaction as speculative loss – Held that:- CIT(A) examined that assessee did not incur net loss during this period. Prior to the notification, assessee received net gain from transactions in F&O. AO has no basis for arriving at a derivative trading loss. Therefore appeal decide in favour of assessee
Addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 – Held that:- Department representative has not pointed out any factual error in the findings of CIT(A). The assessee has filed all these evidence before the AO. The AO in his order has in a very casual manner, without giving any reasons as to why the evidence furnished by the assessee was not acceptable, made the addition. Therefore, ITAT do not find any reason as to why the issue is to be set aside to the file of the AO. Appeal decides in favour of assessee
Disallowance of interest expense - The bank granted overdraft facilities for business purposes – AO made addition on basis that assessee has surplus funds in the form of undistributed profits of the earlier year – Addition made on presumption that the surplus funds have to be held as used for giving money to directors/sister concerns - Held that:- where the assessee has own funds as well as borrowed funds and it advanced funds to the sister concern for allegedly non business purposes, then a presumption can be made that the advances for non-business purposes have been made out of own funds following the decision Reliance Utilities Limited (2009 (1) TMI 4). Appeal decides in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 429 - ITAT, DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee surrendered dis-allowance of depreciation - Held that:- On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that AO was factually wrong in mentioning that the assessee has wrongly claimed additions to its assets. The fact is that the claim of additions to assets was rightly made. The only issue is whether the assessee has put these additional assets to use, for enabling it to claim depreciation. The issue as to whether the assets were put to use, has not been tested in this case as the assessee has surrendered the claim. The assessee has declared a loss and surrendering part of the depreciation would only result in reduction of loss. Either way the assessee is not saddled with any tax liability. Under these circumstances, the assessee had agreed to forego part of its claim for depreciation. The fact remains that in the subsequent AY, the Revenue has allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on these assets. Under these circumstances, claim of the assessee was bonafide, and CIT (A) has rightly deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 428 - ITAT, DELHI
Reasonableness of declaring the assessment made by the AO as null and void by observing that the notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued in status of “Local Authority” whereas status of assessee is of "Artificial Juridicial Person" without appreciating the fact that the proforma of notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) are prescribed and there is no claim in these notices where the status of the assessee can be mentioned - Held that:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) was not correct in holding that assessment is null and void. The defect in issuance of notice and assessment noted by the CIT(A) was not fatal so as to render the assessment null and void. It was curable defect. Matter remitted to the file of the AO to consider the issue afresh.
-
2012 (9) TMI 427 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account by applying the GP rate on assumed turnover – Assesse is in business of plying of trucks – Assessee has sold 7 and acquired 4 during the F.Y - AO apply GP rate on the basis that, assessee has transferred the vehicles in question on paper only as a colourable device to avail Sec. 44AE – Held that:- During search proceedings no incriminating evidence were found by the department to suggest that the vehicles even after the sale thereof in fact belonged to the assessee and that the assessee owned them as benami and was actually the owner of the more than 10 trucks in any of the relevant assessment years. Sale proceeds from vehicles were recorded in the bank account and the value of the block of assets was reduced by the said amount. If AO has applied the GP rate, he has also to allow the depreciation thereafter and by doing so, the income becomes lower than the returned income of the assessee. Decision in favour of assessee.
Addition on account of unexplained expenditure - Addition was made on basis of some entries written by pencil on the loose paper found during search – Held that:- In the absence of any evidence before us to controvert the findings given by the CIT(A), hold that no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Appeal decides in favour of assessee
Addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C – Addition on the basis of some seized loose paper found during search - On which some petty cash advances written on different dates given to persons – Held that:- As the entries mentioned in the loose paper tallies with the regular books of accounts of the assessee, there remains no valid reason for making any addition under section 69C. Decision in favour of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refusal to extend/continuance of Certificate of Registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act – alleged that on verification of the books of account, bills and vouchers produced, discrepancies were noticed – Held that:- main object should be charitable activity and not maintenance of accounts in the way the authorities want. Books of account are maintained substantially as required under law and as long as money is not spent for any other purpose other than charitable purpose, they should be granted the benefit - Unnecessarily the assessee is made to find litigation before this Court. He would have spent that time in conducting charitable activities – in favor of assessee - respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the assessee towards cost of this appeal
-
2012 (9) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direction for special audit - complexity of accounts - Held that:- AO felt that the case required detailed scrutiny or monitoring, verification of entries, which were substantial in number. Detailed scrutiny of large number of entries by itself, on standalone basis, will not amount to complexity of accounts. The accounts do not become complex because merely there are large number of entries, an AO is required to scrutinize the entries and verify them, but this does not require services of a special auditor or a Chartered Accountant to undertake the said exercise. Section 142(2A) is not a provision by which the AO delegates his powers and functions, which he can perform to the special auditor. The said provision has been enacted to enable the AO to take help of a specialist, who understands accounts and accounting practices to examine the accounts when they are complex and the Assessing Officer feels that he cannot understand them and comprehend them fully, till he has help and assistance of a special auditor.
Determining and deciding certain legal issues - nature and character of Nazul I and Nazul II land, payments received and the treatment of the said payments, receipts or expenditure in the books for the purposes of taxation - Held that:- The special auditor cannot go into and examine the said legal issue or question regarding taxability. This has to be determined and decided by the AO himself - AO should indicate his prima facie or tentative view on why the legal issue requires examination of accounts by the specialist. A Chartered Accountant, a specialist in accounts does not have a role to play and cannot be delegated and asked to decipher, decide or express his opinion on nature and character of Nazul I or Nazul II land receipts and payments. The case and the stand of the assessee is that as per the statute, including the Rules, Nazul I and Nazul II land, payments received, expenditure incurred etc., belong to the Central Government and nothing whatsoever can be attributed to them. There is no examination, consideration of the legal aspect and formation of a tentative view. The decision on this legal issue cannot be transposed and passed to the Chartered Accountant as a special auditor as he is not a specialist and mandated by the Act to undertake the said exercise - As AO have repeatedly in all orders, for the purpose of recording reasons, taken the "notes of accounts" and verbatim incorporated the same. This is apparently correct and, therefore, discloses non-consideration and non-application of mind, which constitutes an error in the decision making process.
Examine irregularities committed in connection with the expenditure in relation to Commonwealth games - Held that:- that in the show cause notice, there is no reference to Section 13(3) or any related person and misuse of assets or funds by a related person. Irregularities can be examined and verified by the Assessing Officer and for this purpose, special audit is not required. Exemption and verification by themselves cannot and do not constitute complexity in accounts - the Assessing Officer had not obtained comments/ findings on the C&AG report but he had directed the special auditor to obtain/ask for the same, and then give his opinion. The aforesaid reason itself justifies quashing of the said order on the ground of non application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction keeping in view the parameters of Section 142(2A).
Registration under Section 12AA is not final and facts and accounts of each year have to be examined - Held that:- No doubt that facts and accounts of each year have to be examined but this is different from stating or alleging that Section 13(3) is applicable as that misappropriation, if any, by the employees or third persons which causes loss to the petitioner cannot be a ground to invoke Section 13(3) as the petitioner is a distinct taxable entity. The petitioner suffers when there is misappropriation of the funds or misuse of assets/funds because of malafide or criminal intent of a third person - quash the direction/orders for special audit - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Liaison Office(LO) and Indian subsidiary - assessee is a company of Finland - Whether the Liaison Office of Nokia constitutes a PE in India under Article 5 of the DTAA ? - Whether NIPL constitutes a PE in India under Article 5 of the DTAA? - Held that:- The assessee had opened this LO in India on 30.3.1994 Two agreements were signed between the assessee on the one hand and Indian Cellular Operators on the other hand viz. Modi Telestra (I) Ltd. and Skycell Communication Ltd. on 23.3.1995 and 17.2.1995 respectively. When these contracts were signed, the assessee subsidiary viz. NIPL was not in existence. As this company was incorporated on 23.5.1995 after that date four other agreements were entered into with different cellular operators. The assessee supplied both the hardware and software to Indian Cellular Operators and its subsidiary namely NIPL carried out installation work.
The LO has not carried out any business activity for the assessee in India and that its role has been only to assist the assessee in the preliminary and preparatory work. It is further found by the ITAT that as per the rules of the Reserve Bank of India itself, a LO is not permitted to carry out any business activity for a foreign enterprise. Its activities are closely mentioned by the Reserve Bank of India - The Income-tax authorities would appear to have also held that the LO carried out marketing activities for the assessee in India but for this finding, there is no evidence and none of the contracts which have been brought on record indicate that the LO has carried out any marketing activities' - there was nothing on record to show that the LO had something to do with designing activity connected to the GSM - thus it is clear that there is no material or evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the LO can afford a business connection to the assessee in India. For same reasons, we are of the view that LO cannot be constituted as Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India - in favour of assessee.
Taxability on income from off-shore supply of equipment - Held that:- That the terms of contract make it clear that acceptance test is not a material event for passing of the title and risk in the equipment supplied. It is because of the reason that even if such test found out that the system did not conform to the contractual parameters, as per article 21.1 of the Supply Contract, the only consequence would be that the Cellular Operator would be entitled to call upon the assessee to cure the defect by repairing or replacing the defective part. If there was delay caused due to the acceptance test not being complied with, Article 19 of the Supply Contract provided for damages. Thus, the taxable event took place outside India with the passing of the property from seller to buyer and acceptance test was not determinative of this factor. The position might have been different if the buyer had the right to reject the equipment on the failure of the acceptance test carried out in India - Overall Agreement does not result the income accruing in India. The execution of an overall agreement is prompted by purely commercial considerations as the India Cellular Operator would be desirous of having a single entity that he could liaise with - in favour of assessee.
Consideration for supply of equipment and licensing of software - 'royalty' u/s 9(l)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or Article 13 of India-Finland DTAA - Held that:- In order to qualify as royalty payment, within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) and particularly clause (v) of Explanation-II thereto, it is necessary to establish that there is transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of any license) in respect of copy right of a literary, artistic or scientific work - Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act makes it clear that a computer programme is to be regarded as a 'literary work'. Thus, in order to treat the consideration paid by the cellular operator as royalty, it is to be established that the cellular operator, by making such payment, obtains all or any of the copyright rights of such literary work. In the presence case, this has not been established. It is not even the case of the Revenue that any right contemplated under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 stood vested in this cellular operator as a consequence of Article 20 of the Supply Contract - in favour of assessee.
Business connection of NIPL subsidiary of the assessee company engaging itself in activities to support the assessee's main activities - Held that:- NIPL could be considered PE of assessee in India being subsidiary as it is the virtual projection of the company in India. Further, the accounts of the Indian subsidiary show that the company incurred huge losses as it was not compensated properly for the installation work carried on by it. In the opinion of the ITAT since it was a wholly owned subsidiary, the assessee would have direct and complete control over the activities of this subsidiary - Refer the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the issues as to whether the subsidiary of the assessee would provide business connection or is Permanent Establishment and even if it is so, is there any attributes of profits on account of signing, under working, planning and negotiation of off-shore supply contracts in India.
-
2012 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Non applicability of section 201(1) r.w.s. 192 - fair estimate of the income of the employee while deducting TDS - Held that:- This Court do not consider it necessary to answer the Reference as to whether the Tribunal was right in fact and in law in holding that section 201(1) r.w.s. 192 was not applicable “in the instant case”. The instant case, however, can be assessed only in the event of the AO making the enquiries that he has been directed to make by the Tribunal. This would include looking into the question whether the employees had already paid the taxes on these amounts. If, for instance, it is found that the taxes were not paid, the further question as to whether the estimates were bona fide or not would arise. This in turn, would depend, inter-alia, upon the extent of the shortfall - as the matter at this stage is academic all the contentions including of law are kept open. - the Reference is returned unanswered.
-
2012 (9) TMI 407 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Abnormally high profit - extraordinary arrangement between the assessee and the German company - Held that:- The profits earned by Kandla division of the respondent-assessee is not abnormally high due to any arrangement between the respondent-assessee and its German Principal. The Tribunal correctly held that extraordinary profits cannot lead to the conclusion that this is an arrangement between the parties. This would penalize efficient functioning. Further the industrial sewing machine needles imported and traded by the Mumbai division are different from those manufactured & exported by the Kandla division, this also negatives any arrangement between the parties to show extraordinary profits in respect of its Kandla division so as to claim deduction under Section 10A - The appellant- revenue have not been able to show that the findings are perverse or arbitrary - against revenue.
Computation of deduction u/s 10A without setting off of the loss from the trading unit - Held that:- As decided in CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Section 10A is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption - the deduction under Section 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business - Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter – against revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additions on Deemed dividend - Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs) - addition made by AO was deleted by ITAT - Held that:- The Tribunal has examined all the facts relevant to the case and have correctly reached the conclusion that none of the shareholders of respondentassessee or the respondentassessee itself is a shareholder of Company from whom Loan is taken. Similarly, neither Company imparting loan nor its shareholders are holding any shares in the respondentassessee. Further, Section 2(22)(e) does not provide that having a common Director in two companies would make Section 2(22) (e) applicable. Thus Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable in respect of the loan advanced to the respondent-assessee - in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of the proportionate interest on the interest free loans given to the subsidiary companies - ITAT deleted it - Held that:- As decided in CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited [2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] where interest free funds are available with an assesee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time loans are taken, then a presumption would arise that the investment has been made out of interest free funds available with the company and not out of loans taken - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 405 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Disallowance of business expenditure - car hire, printing, hire of manpower and sampling and display of the goods dealt - Plea of violation of natural justice - Held that:- As repeated opportunities to the appellant assessee to disclose the identity of the said entities and/or to bring them before the AO had yielded no result. Undoubtedly it was the initial burden of the assessee to establish the identity of such persons and/or to produce them to support its claim. The assessee having failed to do so the AO had no alternative but to make enquiries in the bank accounts of those entities to establish their identities. However, such effort also proved futile inasmuch as neither any address was given in the said account opening forms nor there was no introducer to such account. Thus it cannot be said that enquiries made by the inspector in respect of the bank accounts of those entities were in violation of principle of natural justice or caused any prejudiced to the assessee.
As the assessee supplied cigarettes for display and sampling but had admitted they had no record of the individual shops where such distributions were made. If that is so, no purpose would be served in remanding the case after a lapse of almost two decades for production of self-same evidence which the assessee expressed inability to produce during the assessment proceeding - the issue as to whether such expenses were necessary or not in terms of the commercial expediency under section 37 (1) would arise only after the assessee had discharged its initial onus to prima facie establish such claim. If the assessee had failed to discharge its primary onus to establish such claim as in the present case, the question as to its commercial expediency does not arise at all - against assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 404 - SC ORDER
Entitlement for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)- underwriting commission and interest on PSEB Bonds and IDBI Bonds - Held that:- As decided in CIT v. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Limited [2005 (8) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Assessee-cooperative society carrying on business of banking statutorily required to place a part of its funds in approved securities, the income attributable thereto is deductible u/s 80P(2) - against revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Succession - Undisclosed income - interest income earned on FDRs - 50 % of the share of the deceased husband will go to his legal heirs and 50 % to the assessee - Held that:- The CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have held that in terms of Section 5A which was brought into force in the year 1994 with retrospective effect from 01/04/1963, the assessee and her husband were governed by the system of Community of Assets ('COMMUNIAO DOS BENS') which is in force in the State of Goa.
The ITAT held that after the death of husband of the assessee, only 50 % of the share in the FDRs would pass on to three sons and one daughter and the assessee would be entitled to 50 % of the share and, therefore, the directions given by the CIT(A) to the AO to consider 50 % of the interest amount in the hands of the assessee as her undisclosed income for the block period, cannot be faulted. Thus the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon Section 5A of the Act and Articles 1122 and 1123 of Portuguese Family Civil Law which is in force in the State of Goa and dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) - submission made on behalf of the revenue that the assessment ought to have been on the basis of the body of individuals is totally misplaced - against revenue.
............
|
