|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 743 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1109 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... umar Kapoor (2011) 140 TTJ 249 and a copy of the same has been placed on record, where it has been held that reassessment on the basis of incriminating material found in search of third party and the provisions of section 153C are applicable which exclude the application of section 147 & 148. Hence, notice issue u/s 148 and proceedings u/s 147 are illegal and void ab initio. The AO having not followed the procedure u/s 153C, reassessment order was rightly quashed by the ld. CIT(A). On the identical facts, in the present case, the AO had issued notice u/s 148 and therefore, following the said decision of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of I.T.O. vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor (supra), the reassessment made by the AO is directed to be quashed. Thus, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.229(Asr)/2012 is dismissed and C.O. No.23(Asr)/2012 of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1106 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rom the relevant record and decide the same afresh on such verification in the light of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in paragraph No. 31 of the judgment as extracted above.” Therefore, Ground No.1 of the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Consequently, ground No.1 of cross objection is allowed and Ground No.2 & 5 (incorrectly numbered) are allowed for statical purposes in the manner aforesaid. 10. Apropos Ground No.2 of the revenue’s appeal it has already been mentioned that assessee did not press this ground of the revenue, therefore, this ground of the revenue regarding deleting of ₹ 90,020/- under section 14A is allowed and Ground No.3 of assessee’s cross objection is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 5th day of September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1105 - ITAT PUNE
Agricultural income qualifying for exemption under section 10(1) - Held that:- The authorities belong indeed erred in law and on facts of this case in holding that the impugned income is not agricultural income. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to treat the said income as agricultural income under section 2 (1A)(b)(i) of the Act. As a corollary to this direction, the Assessing Officer shall also exclude the said income from the total income under section 10(1) of the Act.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1104 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... rlier years is concerned, from the above chart it is clear that net profit was applied at 6.5 and it has not been clarified whether same was reduced by any authority. In other years the lower profit was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act which means lower profit has been accepted without any enquiry. As far as the order of the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2006-07 is concerned, the same has already been rightly distinguished by the ld. CIT(A) because in that year the assessee had produced all the books and vouchers. However, keeping the overall past history of the case we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the NP Rate of 6 is applied, because the assessee is not engaged in the building construction but is engaged in the road construction. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to make addition on account of NP Rate 6 . 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 24.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1103 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Denial of exemption under Section 10(20A) - Held that:- In the instant case, the object and function of incorporating the appellant-company is totally for different purpose. The appellant was incorporated pursuant to the resolution of the Government of Karnataka, but not constituted under any law. It was incorporated for the purpose of achieving certain objects and cannot be equated with the authority constituted in India by or under any law enacted. Looking at the object of the appellant-company it cannot be treated as an authority under article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since they are not discharging the functions of housing accommodation and for the purpose of planning and development of the Cities, towns and villages, the appellant does not fall under the purview of Section 10(20A) of the Act. Hence, they are not entitled to claim exemption. - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1102 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... notice that either Vestas RRB India Ltd. or Snowcem are related to the assessee or they are related to each other. 22. The various other decisions relied on by the AO and CIT(A) are also distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case because in those cases the transactions have taken place between related parties. In this view of the matter and relying on the decision of the Third Member (Ahmedabad Bench) of the Tribunal in the case of Chitra Publicity Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Western Maharastra Flourine Chemical Industries (supra) we hold that the actual cost paid by the assessee at ₹ 6,69,85,000/- to Vestas RRB India Ltd. being cost of 3 wind mills should be considered as cost price for allowing the depreciation to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1101 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re not conclusive of the matter. This Court is aware of the fact that the assessee was bound to follow and implement the directions as a consequence of the notification dated 4.3.1998. Its misfortune was that this material was not revealed to the authorities at the appropriate stage. That was compounded by seeking wrong remedies i.e. through rectification, having regard to the law. In those circumstances then the assessee may have to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax, in respect of the original assessment order framed in March, 2001 in the present case under Section 264 of the Act. The revision application should be considered on its merits having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the appellant pursued a wrong remedy for the period from 2001 till date, if the appellant approaches the CIT under Section 264 within a month. Liberty to file an application under Section 264 is granted. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - Held that:- The stair case definitely comes under the common pool used by all the inhabitants, therefore, it cannot be included in the built up area. Even otherwise the Assessing Officer noted from the details submitted by the assessee that three types of flats were sold by the assessee and in the type “A” category the area is 1386.03 sq. ft., whereas in type “B” the total area is 1122.48 sq. ft., and in type “C” flat, the total area is 811.84 sq. ft. per flat. These details were submitted by the assessee vide letter dated 12-12-2008 before the ld. CIT(A) and earlier before the Assessing Officer. Such details have been reproduced at page 4 of the impugned order. There is a factual recording that stair case is common area between the two adjacent flats measuring 8.172 sq. mts. and if this area is reduced from the total area of the unit then certainly it comes below the prescribed limit of 1500 sq. ft.
This being the first year of claiming deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer himself noted that assessee’s 48 units of Type-A flats; 90 units of Type-B & Type-C units were under construction, the Assessing Officer himself computed the built up area by including the stair case area, therefore, it exceeded the prescribed limit. Such factual finding recorded in the impugned order was not controverted by the Revenue by bringing any positive material on record. In view of these facts we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is clearly entitled for such deduction. Therefore, we find no justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn in the impugned order, which is affirmed.
Apportionment of expenses in the ratio of turn over to different units - no part of the head office expenses pertaining to management were debited to Krishna Lok Unit - Held that:- There is a categorical finding that the assessee company has not taken any loan secured or unsecured for Krishna Lok and the ledger print out of the current account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Punjab National Bank were furnished during assessment proceedings which clearly indicates that the total receipt from Krishna Lok project sale is utilized for the purpose of meeting expenses of Krishna Lok and none of the loans from Head Office were transferred to Krishna Lok. There is a further finding that there is no question of transfer any financial expenses to Krishna Lok and further the administrative and other expenses which include salary, bonus other perquisites, employees welfare and the rates and taxes, general expenses, newspaper and periodicals, legal and professional expenses, postage & telephone charges, power fuel and water charges, printing & stationery, vehicle repair & maintenance expenses etc. are incurred separately and debited separately to Krishna Lok restaurant and other projects. Such expenses are business specific and not commonly incurred. On careful scrutiny of allocated expenses, we find that the expenses in the nature of “audit fee” and “director remuneration” are for the assessee as a whole and not specific to the business. Consequently, the expenses of ₹ 33,660/- and ₹ 58,630 respectively are allocated to Krishna Project, therefore, addition to the extent of ₹ 2,92,290/- is sustained. The deletion of addition of balance expenses of ₹ 57,66,129/- is upheld. This ground is, therefore, allowed partly.
Extra depreciation on computer peripherals/ accessories - Held that:- The assessee claimed ₹ 16,500/- to fixed assets in the block of computers and computer peripherals which as per the assessee are depreciable @ 60%, which was denied by the Assessing Officer . We find that the ld. CIT(A) considered the issue in a justified manner and deleted the addition of ₹ 7425/-. We find no justification to interfere with the same as nothing contrary was brought to our notice
disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) - A.Y. 2007-08 - Held that:- As per sub-section (10) of Sec. 80-IB, the housing project which were approved before 31st day of March, 2008, the benefit will be hundred per cent subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. However, this condition was substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act of 2009 with effect from 1-4-2009, which has been further explained by sub-clause (ii) to the Explanation regarding completion certificate. However, since the approval was granted to the assessee on 1-4-2005, therefore, the assessee is not expected to fulfill the conditions which were not on the statute when such approval was granted to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition u/s. 68 - treating the Short Term Capital Gain as unexplained cash credit - Held that:- Since the shares were sold after 1-4-2005, the transactions were not under the broker's code. As regards service-tax and stamp charges the contract note of the broker clearly mentioned that the brokerage was inclusive of service tax etc. In the case of the selling broker the Service tax Securities Transaction tax and Education Cess were separately mentioned. As regards the point raised by the Assessing Officer that there was absence of broker-client agreement, the Tribunal accepted the submission of the assessee that the genuineness of the transactions was already proved by the contract notes for sale and purchase, the bank statement of the broker, the Demat Account showing transfer in and out of shares, as also abstract of transactions furnished by the CSE. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had furnished complete details which were not found false or bogus by the Assessing Officer and that it was only on suspicion that the Assessing Officer had treated the capital gain declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by it, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
In the light of the above findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to state that the view adopted by the Tribunal is, in any manner, unreasonable or perverse.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1098 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition u/s. 68 - treating the Short Term Capital Gain as unexplained cash credit - Held that:- As regards the point raised by the Assessing Officer that there was absence of broker-client agreement, the Tribunal accepted the submission of the assessee that the genuineness of the transactions was already proved by the contract notes for sale and purchase, the bank statement of the broker, the Demat Account showing transfer in and out of shares, as also abstract of transactions furnished by the CSE. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, concurred/with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee had furnished complete details which were not found false or bogus by the Assessing Officer and that it was only on suspicion that the Assessing Officer had treated the capital gain declared by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by it, the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1097 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and expenses incurred in foreign exchange for travelling should be reduced from the total turnover as well as from export turnover for applying the provisions of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ” 2. Counsel for the parties state that the aforesaid question stands answered against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. reported in 2011 330 I.T.R. 175 (Bom). In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o;C’ Bench, Ahmadabad, in case of M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd. vs. DCIT bearing ITA No. 2869/Ahd/2011 (A.Y. 2005-06) vide order dated 23/03/2012, wherein the similar issue was before them and allowed the appeal by considering the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations (supra). From the side of Revenue, ld. Sr. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below and requested to confirm the addition. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and considering the case laws cited by the appellant. Both the parties are agreed that the facts are identical with the case laws cited by the appellant and squarely applicable in case of appellant. TDS had been deducted by the appellant which was paid on 13.05.2005 which is before the due date of filing the return for A.Y. 05-06. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 21.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1095 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Trust - exemption u/s 11 - whether letting out the auditorium to other parties and part of the premises constitute charitable purpose? - Held that: - the assessee used to charge market rates while hiring or letting out auditorium - Apart from hiring of the auditorium, the assessee received rents on account of letting out some portion of its premises to M/s Benett and Coleman. That cannot be termed as unreasonable - In view of the fact that the previous orders in which the claim for the assessee to be a charitable trust was upheld, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in this aspect. - appeal dismissed - exemption allowed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1093 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account of unaccounted advances - CIT-A allowed the appeal of the assessee by granting benefit of peak credit. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not have any reasons to confront the view of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to follow the decision of the learned CIT(A).
Addition on account of bad debts u/s 36(1) (vii) - Held that:- This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. R. F. Ltd. Vs CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it was held that “it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough, if the bad debt written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition
Addition on account of payment made to persons specified u/s 40A (2) (b) deleted as relying on assessee's own case [2011 (5) TMI 1049 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]
Unexplained advances/loans - Held that:- Though the entries in the records seized from third party and his confirmatory statement may raise suspicion but cannot prove that it is assessee’s income”, which seems to be squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Further, the question raised by the learned AR remains to be unanswered that there was no interpretation made by the learned AO for the balance amount of ₹ 2,15,60,000/- advanced out of the total amount of ₹ 2,78,60,000/- decoded as amount advanced, whereas the learned AO treated ₹ 63,00,000/- pertaining to the assessee. Additions deleted
Addition on account of interest income on unaccounted loans - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the addition as he held that there was no reason for making the addition of ₹ 63,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee for the alleged advances made through Shri Mihir Shah. Since, we have also concurred with this view of the learned CIT(A) (supra) and this addition of ₹ 1,34,940/- being consequential for the addition made for ₹ 63,00,000/-, we delete the same.
Addition on account of unaccounted payments/advances - Held that:- This issue pertains to the granting of benefit of peak credit to the assessee for the advances made and advances returned. Both the parties submitted that the this issue is the same as considered for the AY 2006-07 wherein the learned AO did not grant the benefit of peak credit considering that there was no rotation of money involved, however, the learned CIT(A) had allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. Thus we follow the same and allow the appeal in favour of assessee
Addition on account of silver coins purchased - Held that:- There is no dispute with respect to the year in which the silver coins were procured i.e. during the year 1995. If these coins were purchased for the purpose of distribution as gift by the assessee and distributed as such during that year, the assessee may have been entitled to claim it as expenditure for that year. If a portion of the same is not distributed, then the same ought to have appeared as asset in the balance sheet of the assessee. Thus, whatever may be the position then, the effect in the profit & loss account might have been correctly or incorrectly presented in that year which does not have any bearing on the year under consideration. Further, there is no dispute that the silver coins were purchased during the year 1995 from the declared source of income.
Addition on account of excess physical stock over the stock book - Held that:- CIT(A) has considered the issue judiciously. The learned CIT(A) has adjusted the shortage of stock with the excess stock i.e. value of shortage of stock of ₹ 20,03,436/- (–) value of excess stock of ₹ 7,10,626/- which amounts to ₹ 12,92,810/- and calculated 6% on the same to be income accrued for the discrepancy in stock which works out to ₹ 77,568/-. However, the learned CIT(A) estimated the addition to ₹ 1,00,000/- as against the addition of ₹ 8,30,826/- made by the learned AO. Thus, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 7,30,826/-. We concur with this view of the learned CIT(A)
-
2012 (9) TMI 1091 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ent year 2008-2009 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). We direct accordingly and allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. No costs.” 5. The provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81. Accordingly, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh with regard to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act in respect of disallowance of interest in the light of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Mfg. (supra). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1090 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ;Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the closing stock of polished diamonds was undervalued to the extent of ₹ 2,96,08,019/-” Issue notice to the respondent. Paper Book be submitted within three months.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1088 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d appeal against the decision of the High Court in every case, the same need not be treated as law accepted by the Revenue. In view of the admission of the SLPs and the decision of the Supreme Court above referred the dismissal of the appeal by us is not correct particularly when on merit we held that re- assessment under Section 147 was valid. We therefore allow the Review Petition by recalling the judgment in ITA No.254/2010 and allow the said appeal relating to the assessment year 2003-04 by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and restore the assessment as valid. We make it clear that the judgment for other years will not be affected by review in this case. However, if there is any other issue raised in the appeal relating to the amount assessed or disallowance made that is not decided on merit by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appeal will stand revived for decision on those matters.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ven in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee”. 13. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which is binding on us, the recent decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra) and keeping in view that the interpretation has to be construed in a manner beneficial to the assessee as held in CIT vs. Vegetable Products ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192 (SC), we are inclined to uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. The common ground taken by the Revenue for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 is, therefore, rejected. 14. In the result, Revenue’s appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 12-09-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1086 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e find that Shri Kantilal M. Patel has stated that the seized document is a computer generated paper and he is not aware of who has prepared it. He has offered the cash receipt amount as his additional income to purchase peace of mind and to avoid litigation. 10. Be that as it may, we do not find any material brought on record by the AO to substantiate his claim that assessee has actually paid ₹ 52,26,000/- over and above the cheque amount for the purchase of Shop No. 119 at Little World. The entire assessment has been made only on the basis of surmise, assumptions and conjectures. In our humble opinion, such additions cannot be sustained , more so in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs V.C. Shukla & Ors (supra). We do not find any reason to tinker with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) which we confirm. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 12th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1085 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 80IB(10) shall not be applicable in the case of the assessee and (d) the market value of the TDRs allotted to the assessee would constitute the sale consideration for development of the tenements and should be included for the purpose determination of relief u/s. 80IB(10). Therefore the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of tenements developed by them for SRA and the sale price of TDR allotted to the assessee should be considered as sale consideration received for development of the tenements and should be taken into account in computing relief u/s. 80IB(10).” 7. As no new facts have been brought on record by the Revenue, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4223/M/10 (supra), we do not find any reason in tinkering with the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 12th day of September, 2012
........
|
