|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 502 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 889
... ...
... ... ..... 2009 is therefore annulled. The assessee is requested to attend the assessment proceedings from time to time as and when required so as to enable the Assessing Officer to frame a judicious assessment.” o p /o p 14. A perusal of the same demonstrates that the CIT has not come to a conclusion nor has he given a finding on the order passed under Section 143(3) dt. 15.5.2009 by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. o p /o p Nor there is a finding that the order is prejudicial to the Revenue in these conclusions of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus we have no other alternative but to strike down the impugned order passed under Section 263 as the CIT neither has come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, nor that the order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. o p /o p In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p 15. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th January, 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 888
... ...
... ... ..... into consideration the business expediency and other relevant factors. In the present case the assessee and its team went to a far away place for the purpose of TV serial shooting. The assessee had made cash payments to various parties, technicians, artists etc. for the period of 2 to 6 days under business compulsions. We find that the above payment was made under business compulsions and therefore by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the business expediency, we are of the opinion that section 40A(3) has no application to the facts of the assessee’s case. Insofar as the case law relied on by the learned DR is concerned, it has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we reverse the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 17th of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 886
... ...
... ... ..... d into an international transaction. As the assessee has made comparison of transactions with AEs and Non-AEs for the same financial year, in our considered opinion there is no logic in accepting TPO's stand, who rejected the CUP method on the ground that there was difference in the dates of transaction with AEs and Non-AEs. When we compare the price charged by the assessee from its AEs with Non-AEs, it is palpable that no adjustment is required. It can be seen from page 35 of the paper book that the assessee charged price of Cyper Tech from third parties at ₹ 373.33 as against that charged from AEs at ₹ 381.28. Similar is the position as regards other products sold by the assessee to its AEs and non-AEs, which can be seen from pages 36 onwards of the paper book. In view of the above reasons we are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... n 12AA & 80G of the Act, we have no option except to set aside the orders of CIT dated 21.06.2012 for refusal of registration under section 12AA of the Act and refusal of approval under section 80G of the Act. We direct the CIT to grant registration under section 12AA and renewal of approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA and for approval under section 80G of the Act.” 8. Since the facts are identical, we follow the above order of I.T.A.T. and in the light of that, similar directions are given to the CIT to grant registration under section 12AA and to grant approval under section 80G of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA and for grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (1) TMI 883
... ...
... ... ..... ssee has been utilized in purchasing these shares as such money derived from sale of these share was his long term capital gain and not the income of the business. Similar controversy has been raised in the assessment year 2005-06 in respect of the assessee. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Kanodia allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment of Atul Kanodia has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 631 of 2007 and the judgment in the case of the assessee has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 201 of 2010 by judgment dated 14.12.2012. The controversy has already been settled by this Court. The Senior Standing Counsel could not point out any distinguishing feature for not following the aforesaid judgments. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal has no force and is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... f hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submissions as submitted before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) further submits that the disallowance of ₹ 12,000/- made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 10. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A). 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that assessee has claimed th4e professional fees of ₹ 12,000/- out of the income from other sources. In the absence of any material to show as to how the professional fees of ₹ 12,000/- is allowable u/s 57 of the Act, we are of the view that the claim made by the assessee is devoid of any merits and accordingly the ground taken by the assessee is rejected. 12. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (1) TMI 881
... ...
... ... ..... /o p 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” o p /o p 6.3 Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of jurisdictional Tribunal, I direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s 54F. These grounds of appeal are allowed.” o p /o p 8. No specific error could be pointed out by the CIT/DR in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT/DR has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs V.R. Desai (supra) which has been considered by the Chennai ‘A’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.K.P. Elayarajan vs DCIT(supra) and then allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue in both the cases are dismissed. o p /o p 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013, at Chennai. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... ient documentary evidence to prove that the cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 should be 150/- per sqyd.. o p /o p Assessee has submitted in this regard a certificate from Nagar Palika and Report from Land Revenue Inspector, copy of Sajra, copy of purchase deed, details of circle rate fixed by the State Governent. o p /o p These documents cogently prove that the assessee’s contention that rate of acquisition should be adopted as ₹ 150/- per sqyd. is proved. Since assessee has submitted so many documentary evidence, the onus has shifted from the assessee to the Assessing Officer. But the Assessing Officer has not discharged his onus to show any discrepancy/ falsity in such evidence. Under the circumstances, we do no find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), accordingly, we uphold the same. o p /o p 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 878
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bad debts - Held that:- in absence of any material to indicate any dishonest attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income, no penalty can be imposed - the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return - neither there is any concealment of income nor is there any material to indicate filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 877
... ...
... ... ..... he account of Welcare Hospital during the year under consideration was to the extent of ₹ 1,24,095. According to the ld.representative, merely because the Welcare Hospital has not accounted this payment it cannot be added in the hands of the taxpayer. We heard, Shri M Anil Kumar, the ld.DR also. 6. Though the taxpayer claims that cash was received on supply of electrical goods from Welcare Hospital on day today basis no confirmation or document could be filed for receipt of cash. The taxpayer could not reconcile the accounts before the lower authorities. No such reconciliation was also filed before this Tribunal. In the absence of any material, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the lower authority has rightly made the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the taxpayer are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 11th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 876
... ...
... ... ..... rounds in the COs against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. 12. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed.” We have considered the above findings of the Coordinate Bench and also perused the grounds raised by the Revenue in both cases which turn out to be identical. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted assessee’s claim of depreciation. The same is, therefore confirmed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. C.O. No.125/Mds/2012 7. Since the Cross Objections filed by the assessee only support the order of the CIT(A), which we have confirmed, the objections are also dismissed. 8. To sum up, both appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 8th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... ely for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession.” Section 40 (b) however places certain restrictions on the deductibility of amount of interest and remuneration payable to partners. The relevant clauses in the partnership deed do not violate the prescription of sec. 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, they are admissible for deduction u/s.37. In this view of the matter, it was imperative on the part of the assessee to work out the amount of profit correctly so as to claim right amount of profit for exemption. The assessee has deliberately suppressed the expenditure with a view to inflate the profit eligible for exemption. In our view, such course of action is not sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed and that of the AO restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed. Order pronounced on 24.01-2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 874
Nature of income on sale of shares - whether capital gains on sale of capital asset or business income - Held that:- Asssessee’s investment behaviour implies that the assessee being an investor in equity shares qua his shareholding as at the beginning of the year - For the year under reference also assessee is an investor, albeit an active one, returning a short term capital gain both qua the investment in mutual funds as well as on the shares purchased by him during the year - The same is accordingly validated as short term capital gains - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... icial pronouncement, we modify the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue and direct the AO to accept the income from house property declared by the assessee adopting the municipal ratable value as annual letting value of its property. Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed whereas the solitary ground raised in the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” 5. Since the issue in the instant case is identical as it was in the case of Gagan Trading (supra), we are inclined to follow the decision as also, because one of us was a party in that case . Respectfully, therefore, following the decision in Gagan Trading (supra), we delete the addition. 6. In the result, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and we direct the AO to delete the addition made at ₹ 3,00,000 (Rs. 3,60,000 - ₹ 60,000). 7. The appeal, as filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 30th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 870
Whether assessee is having Permanent Establishment in India or not - Held that:- assessee has no operation in respect of manufacture or sale of product carried out in India - Sales are made by the assessee to LIPL on principal to principal basis - The assessee a1so does not have a right to use LIPL premises - there should be some definite activity of the PE to which profits can be attributed and merely acting for a non-resident principal would not by itself render an agent to be considered as PE for the purpose of allocating profits - addition of ₹ 2,29,26,152/- made by the AO being a profit margin of 5% on the sales made by the assessee, is not sustainable - Decided in favor of assessee
Chargebility of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- Assessee is a foreign company not liable to tax in India - when a duty was cast on the payer to deduct the tax at source, on failure of the payer to do so, no interest could be imposed on the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee
Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- penalty proceeding are independent proceeding - the ground raised by the assessee is not pressed and accordingly we reject the ground taken by the assessee being pre-matured/not pressed is rejected
-
2013 (1) TMI 869
... ...
... ... ..... ock is followed in the business circle for availing loan from bank. Therefore, no addition can be on account of excess stock solely relying upon the stock statement submitted before the bank. This view of ours is fortified by the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in case of M/s. Sree Taraka Jewellers V/s. ITO (ITA No.1007/Hyd/2011 dated 10-5-2012. 11. So far as the other decisions relied upon by the assessee as well as by the department, suffice it to say, the views of the Courts are divergent considering the peculiar facts involved in each case. Therefore, the decisions cannot be applied uniformly unless the facts are identical. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the addition made is not justified and accordingly the same is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 18 -01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 868
... ...
... ... ..... on the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd.(supra) is misplaced and on the basis this contention of the revenue, the relief cannot be denied to the assessee. 16. In view of the above discussions we are of the opinion that income earned by the assessee from the activity of sale and purchase of shares is to be assessed as business income, therefore, we allow ground No.1 & 2 of the appeal. 17. So far as it relates to ground No.3, since it has been held that activity of sale and purchase entered into by the assessee is in the nature of business, as it has not been disputed by the revenue that borrowed funds on which interest has been paid by the assessee were utilized for the purpose of purchase of shares, the same become consequential and allowable out of income earned by the assessee from the activity of sale and purchase of shares. 18. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of Jan.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 867
... ...
... ... ..... Germany as internal CUP for computing/determining the ALP of the commission receivable by the assessee from the transactions with another AE, namely, Fuch Lubritech GMBH Germany. The rate of commission of 5 , therefore, was rightly adopted by the learned CIT(Appeals) as at arm’s length and by applying the same to the FOB value of transactions to the third party, namely, Grasim Industry, the arm’s length price of the commission received/receivable by the assessee from Fuch Lubritech GMBH Germany was rightly determined by him at ₹ 2,74,068/- as against ₹ 2,03,507/- shown by the assessee thereby restricting the addition made by the AO/TPO by way of TP adjustment to ₹ 70,561/-. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 865
... ...
... ... ..... he details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature." 9. As the Tribunal appreciated the case of the respondent assessee in accordance with law with no material to indicate necessity to dislodge the finding of the Tribunal on record, this Appeal deserves no consideration and therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 864
... ...
... ... ..... the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer who will consider the assessee’s explanation and the working given before the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is also directed to provide relevant details to the Assessing Officer for adjudication of this issue. The Assessing Officer will decide the issue afresh and in accordance with the provisions of law and the facts of the case after giving due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are, thus, allowed for statistical purposes. 16. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeal and Revenue’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th January 2013
............
|
