|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 503 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 864 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 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
-
2013 (1) TMI 863 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... f the year and disallowance had to be worked out from the date of investment and not for the full year. o p /o p 33. The learned D.R. for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. o p /o p 34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. IN view of the confession made by the learned A.R. for the assessee we uphold the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. o p /o p However, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee that the interest relatable to the period from the date of the investment till the close of the year is to be computed and disallowed and there is no merit in disallowing the interest relatable to the full year. The ground No.4 raised by the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p 35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed. o p /o p Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31st day of January, 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 861 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rate of depreciation on UPS, ATM machines and software licence - Held that:- UPS is an integral part of the computer system and regulate the flow of the power to avoid any kind of damage to the computer network due to fluctuation in power supply - hence depreciation at 60% is allowed
ATM cannot function without the help of computer and would be a part of the computer used in the banking industry - hence depreciation at 60% is allowed - Tribunal records a fact that the evidence of the use of the software on 31/3/2008 was produced before the Tribunal - Thus, the Tribunal held that depreciation @ 30% on software was rightly claimed - decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 860 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... accrued to the assessee-company during the year under consideration. Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 197.13 lakhs. o p /o p 12. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 737/PN/2008 pertaining to A.Y. 2001-02 is allowed. o p /o p 13. Now, coming to the appeals for A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06, the facts and circumstances are in pari materia with those for A.Y. 2001- 02. So, the decision rendered by us while dealing with the appeal for A.Y. 2001-02, will apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals for A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06. In this view of the matter, we reverse the orders of the CIT(A) for the respective years and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer for the years under consideration. o p /o p 14. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed. o p /o p Decision pronounced in the open court on 31st January 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 859 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... de or sustained in excess of the expenses debited in the profit & loss account. In the present case, the total expenses debited in the profit & loss account is ₹ 66,49,909/- which includes ₹ 65,79,796/- on account of purchase and ₹ 9,196/- on account of depreciation and admittedly, no disallowance can be made against these two expenses. Apart from this, whatever amount is debited to the profit & loss account has been disallowed by the assessee itself in the computation on account of interest expenditure and the disallowance to the extent of balance amount of administrative expenses and other expenses totaling to ₹ 35,847/- has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue also. Hence, ground No.2 is also rejected. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed Order pronounced in the open Court on the date of hearing itself I i.e. on 31-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 856 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wing the “Project Completion” method of accounting wherein expenses incurred on incomplete projects were being shown as Work in Progress? 2) By the impugned order the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal by following its decision in assessee's own case for earlier years. We are informed that the appeals filed by revenue for earlier years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 against the order of the Tribunal granting relief to the respondent assessee has been dismissed. 3) In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 855 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... user in the eyes of law. o p /o p However, user is essentially a matter of fact and, in any case, the said issue is beyond the scope of the present appeal as it does not arise out of the orders of the authorities below and, thus, a matter we therefore find no reason to dwell upon. o p /o p 3.4 Under the given facts & circumstances, therefore, we find little merit in the Revenue’s case. We decide accordingly, accepting the assessee’s Ground No. 1. o p /o p 4. As afore-noted, Ground No. 2, which agitates the initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), was not pressed, and was even otherwise dismissed as being premature by the ld. CIT(A). His order, thus, cannot be impugned on that score; penalty proceeding being separate and distinct proceedings, while the present appeal is in relation to quantum proceedings. We decide accordingly. o p /o p 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 16th day of January, 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 852 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed money for the purpose of acquiring shares - Held that:- The main purpose of making investment was to purchase shares to earn dividend - Acquisition of shares may carry the acquisition of controlling interest, which is purely a commercial - since dividend income is taxable during the year Therefore the interest paid is allowable as deduction u/s57(iii) - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 851 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... pectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench as narrated above, we do not find any substance in action of Assessing Officer for levy of penalty in respect of addition for which substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Even on merits, there is no justification for imposition of penalty where the assessee has discharged the burden casted on it, notwithstanding the fact of confirmation of such addition by appellate authorities. 9. However, in respect of addition in business income, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31st March, 2008 to the extent of ₹ 3.90 lakhs, we confirm the action of Assessing Officer for levy of penalty with respect to this addition, in so far as no substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court against this addition. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 850 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... s debatable. Accordingly, no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hosiery, Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 20001 in its order dated 3rd February, 2001, ob served that “To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable.” Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding as to what is substantial question of law has held that same must be debatable. 5. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench as well as Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, as narrated above, we direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty in respect of addition confirmed on account of cash credit. However, with respect to addition on account of sale of scrap, we confirm the action of Assessing Officer for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 849 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ther grounds of appeal as discussed in earlier paras are allowed.” 3. On the date of hearing, no one has appeared from the side of the respondent-assessee. From the side of the Revenue, ld.Sr.DR Mr.T.Sankar appeared and placed reliance on the penalty order. After hearing the submissions, we are of the considered view that there was no fallacy in the view taken by ld.CIT(A). The issue of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of the transporters as it had emerged from the present case was a contentious issue subject to diversified opinion. We have also noted that the ld.CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC) for the legal proposition that merely on account of disallowance of an expenditure the penalty should not be attracted. Thus, under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no force in this ground of the Revenue, hence hereby dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 848 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... able with the assessee earlier, as the assessee obtained the same only on 30.6.2011 i.e. after passing of the impugned order of learned CIT(A) on 24.6.2011. Keeping in view this submission made by the assessee as well as relevance of the valuation report of the property filed as an additional evidence to decide the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 48(ii), we are of the view that the same should be admitted in the substantial interest of justice. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 48(ii) on merit in the light of the said additional evidence in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. o p /o p 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed while cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 30.1.2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 847 - ITAT AGRA
Whether share transactions were bogus and fictitious - Held that:- The assessee filed copy of the balance sheet of earlier year, copy of bank account, allotment letter, quotation of shares and copies of shares sold along with the sale bills and contract notes issued by the share broker - Hence the sales are not sham transactions - Assessee has received entire sale consideration of shares through known sources - Decided against the revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 846 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Granting of exemption u/s 11 and then depreciation u/s 32 does not amount to granting double deduction because exemption u/s 11 is not a deduction but exemption of an income from the liability of tax on fulfillment of certain conditions.
-
2013 (1) TMI 845 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... x appeal has been filed for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided against the department and has allowed the depreciation and deductions which has been challenged in this tax appeal. The same dispute was raised by the department in Tax Appeal No.933 of 2010 with Tax Appeal No.934 of 2010 to Tax Appeal No.936 of 2010 decided on 26.09.2011 wherein view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld and the questions raised by the Revenue were answered against the department. The same controversy is also involved in this tax appeal which is covered by decision dated 26.09.2011 passed in Tax Appeal No.933 of 2010 along with cognate matters. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant Revenue could not dispute that all the three questions raised in this tax appeal are covered and do not raise any substantial question of law. o p /o p 4. Respectfully following the above, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in open Court on 24.01.2013 o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 844 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ollowed by the assessee. In this view of the situation and after hearing both the parties and considering their rival submissions, we decline to interfere in the relief granted by the learned CIT(A). We find no merit in the Revenue’s appeal. Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” 13. It is also observed that the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment completed for assessment year 2006-2007 has accepted the rebate claimed by the assessee under section 88E on similar basis as adopted by the assessee in assessment year 2007-2008. Keeping in view of these facts of the case, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to compute the rebate allowable to the assessee under section 88E on the same basis as adopted by the assessee and dismiss ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 14. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 843 - ITAT AGRA
Addition on account of long-term capital gains on sale of shares - bogus accommodation entry - Held that:- Assessee sold shares through two brokers and their copies of sale bills and contract notes are filed and sale consideration of share is given to the assessee through banking channel and the rates at which the shares are transferred are similar as approved by M.P. Stock Exchange. The ld. CIT(A) asked the Income-tax Authorities to produce all relevant evidences and material before him to prove that the assessee has accepted bogus accommodation entry, but no material was produced before him in this regard. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. Further, whatever material was collected at the back of the assessee was not forwarded to the assessee. Therefore, same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. - Decided against revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 841 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ies, time factor etc. while taking any decision. The Ld Counsel submitted that the assessee could not furnish the details for want of time. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to furnish the necessary details. Accordingly, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 15. We have already dealt with the other two issues while disposing the appeal of the assessee. We may state here that the assessing officer should provide necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 22-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 840 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... eligible for the claimed depreciation. The phrase “put to use” is treated equivalent to the term “ready for use” for depreciation purposes under the Section 32 of the Act. The catena of decisions relied on by ld. AR support our above conclusion. Some of the decisions relied are as under - 1. Hindustan Platinum P. Ltd ITA No. 3352/Mum/2010 dated 15.6.2011 2. Omkar Textiles P. Ltd 115 TTJ 716 Ahd 3. CIT Vs.Vidhyanchal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd 272 ITR 583 MP 4. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 SC 5. Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 111 ITD 1 Mum SB 6. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussions and drawing support from the above decisions, we hold that the assesseefirm is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act qua these Wind-Mills. 7. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned finding we allow the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 839 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... reproduced herein above it is clear that the Trust’s object is for imparting education and development of skill to Government staff for the benefit of public in general. Thus, it is well established that the society though registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act is an extended limb of the State Government created for the purpose of imparting education and therefore, it is covered by section 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act. We must also add here that we have taken note of all the relevant case laws furnished by the learned DR and we are of the opinion that those decisions will not support the arguments advanced by the learned DR considering the facts discussed hereinabove. Thus from our above discussions we hold this issue also in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, both the grounds raised by the assessee are held in its favour. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04-01-2013
............
|
