|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 502 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 1016
... ...
... ... ..... h Court in the case of Arulmigu Kamakshi Amman Trust in Tax Appeal No.643/11 dated 25.1.2012 (supra) and directed to grant registration under sec.12AA of the Act, by allowing the appeal of the assessee, which means that this Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee accepting the contention of the assessee that the assessee’s Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and registration under sec.12AA has to be granted as a Public Charitable Trust. Therefore, the direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal is that the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) should grant registration under sec.12AA to the assessee as a Public Charitable Trust. In view of the above, we direct the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) to modify his Order dated 6.9.2012 and grant registration under sec.12AA of the I.T. Act to the assessee as a Public Charitable Trust. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Order pronounced on Monday, the 21st of January 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1015
... ...
... ... ..... shares remained unsold by the assessee. The High Court, therefore, held that no disallowance of expenses was required in relation to dividend from trading shares. Recently, Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. India Advantage Securities (supra), have held that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of CCI Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra), the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. could not be followed and no disallowance could be made of expenses in relation to dividend received from trading shares. In view of this position the order of CIT(A) in relation to disallowance in respect of trading shares can not be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and deleted the disallowance upheld by him in relation to trading in shares. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1013
... ...
... ... ..... on in its proper perspective, after verifying all the bank accounts, withdrawals in the earlier years, the possible expenditure which could have been incurred by the assessee out of such withdrawals; and further, whether the assessee had any running account in the company in which he is a Director; and considering all the facts, to decide the addition, if any, warranted. The assessing officer is also directed to keep in mind the legal principles on the issue. Needless to add, the assessee should be given proper opportunity and assessee is free to make his submissions in support of the various contentions raised before the authorities. With these observations, the issue of addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, is restored to the file of the assessing officer, by setting aside the orders of the Revenue authorities on this issue. 9.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11.1.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 1012
... ...
... ... ..... th retrospective effect. In view of the above disallowance of ₹ 2,67,300/- is confirmed. In result the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is reduced from ₹ 14,20,678/- to ₹ 2,67,300/-.” 11. The issue has already been discussed by us while dealing with Revenue’s grounds for deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), since entire amount of TDS was deposited by the assessee before the last date of filing return, no disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of ₹ 2,67,300/-. 12. In so far as reopening is concerned, we found that the detailed reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the reassessment proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection is allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 14th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1011
... ...
... ... ..... nacting the provisions is very clear to treat the date as well as cost of acquisition of capital asset of the previous owner to be the date and cost of acquisition of the assessee for the purpose of computing capital gain in terms of s. 48 - If Expln. (iii) to s. 48 is interpreted in the way sought by the Departmental Representative by taking the date on which the capital asset received by the assessee under a gift becoming his property for the purpose of working out the indexed cost of acquisition, it will certainly not be in consonance with the scheme of the Act and will also defeat the very purpose of introducing the concept of "indexed cost of acquisition" 18. Following the above, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee because the property was purchased by the previous owner in 1968-69. Accordingly, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this respect. 19. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1010
... ...
... ... ..... ticulars of its income and in the absence of detection from the Department, there was all possibilities that such claim would have gone unnoticed causing undue loss to the Revenue. At the same time, the assessee has not established its bona fide at any stage. The assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars with intention to conceal its income, therefore, the conclusion drawn in the impugned order is reversed. The appeal of the Revenue is, consequently, allowed. 7. So far as the cross-objection, filed by the assessee, is concerned, in which reliance has been placed upon the decision in Reliance Petro Products (supra) as per discussion made hereinabove, the facts are distinguishable from the facts of instant case. Since we have reversed the order of the ld. CIT(A), it has become infructuous. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 31.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1008
... ...
... ... ..... for computing the tax payable on the said income SAS BV had not claimed any benefit under Treaty between India and Netherlands. In the quantum proceedings FAA had also held that the agreement between the appellant and SAS BV was based on commercial considerations. In these circumstances, confirming the order of the FAA we cancel the penalty levied by the AO for the AY. 1998-99. As the facts for the AY 1999-2000 are same as that of the earlier AY., so confirming the order of the FAA we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO Ground no1.(A to D)are decided against the AO. As a result two appeals filed by the assessee(ITANo.3708/Mum/2004 AY 1998-1999 and ITA No.3709/Mum/2004 AY 1999-2000)stand allowed, whereas five appeals filed by the AO(ITA No.4081/Mum/2004 AY 1998-1999, ITANo.4082/Mum/2004 AY 1999-2000, ITA No. 5704/ Mum/2004 AY 2000-2001,ITANo.2454/M/2006 AY1998-1999,ITANo.2455/M/2006 AY 1999- 2000.)stand dismissed. Order pronounced on the in the open court on 23rd January,2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1007
... ...
... ... ..... material so as to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) about the steam received and its cost. We also notice that in the above said case law as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in an issue pertaining to special deduction under section 80IA of the “Act” that the concerned assessee is entitled to claim deduction qua the value of the steam used for captive consumption. Nevertheless, in modern day technology, ‘steam’ is also an asset carrying value for the purpose of computing profits. In this view of matter and more so, when there is no record rebutting the findings of the CIT(A) qua valuation of steam, we observe that assessee’s claim has been rightly accepted by the CIT(A). Hence, we see no reason to interfere. 21. In view of our above discussion, all the three appeals I.T.A. Nos. 635/Mds/2010, 791/Mds/2012 and 816/Mds/2012 are dismissed being devoid of merits. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 17th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1006
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax Act. It had urged that the supporting materials disclose that there was STP clearance/approval under Section 10A and that such approval was sufficient to entitle it to the benefit of Section 10B. By judgment, this Court negatived the plea with regard to the approval vis-?-vis Section 10B and has ruled that separate regime exists. The applicant contends that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had, in the present case, not gone into the merits of the alternative claim for entitlement under Section 10A. This fact is apparent from a reading of the order of CIT(A) as well as that of the Tribunal in the order impugned. In the circumstances, the Tribunal shall consider the relevant documents on the basis of the claims and ascertain whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Section 10A, as claimed. The judgment and order of this Court dated 17.09.2012 is accordingly modified; the Tribunal shall proceed to pass appropriate orders after hearing both parties. Order dasti.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1005
... ...
... ... ..... facts of the case in the year under consideration, i.e. 2008-09, are identical to A.Y. 2007-08, I follow the order of I.T.A.T., Agra Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.138/Agra/2012 and in the light of that I confirm the order of Revenue Authorities applying N.P. rate of 8%. However, the interest income of ₹ 3,37,886/- separately added by the A.O. is deleted. Accordingly orders of the Revenue Authorities to that extent are set aside and modified and I direct the A.O. that no separate addition on account of interest income be made in the year under consideration. The assessee allowed relief of ₹ 3,37,886/-. 9. Before parting from the matter, it is to clarify that by deleting this addition of separate interest income of ₹ 3,37,886/- the assessed income must not be less than the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. (Order pronounced in the open Court).
-
2013 (1) TMI 1004
... ...
... ... ..... he overall circumstances of the case we estimate the profit at 5% of ₹ 1,52,36,179/- as against 8% upheld by the learned CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is therefore partly allowed. 10. Apropos ground No. 2 the facts of the case are that the assessee has shown unsecured loan of ₹ 19,607/- stated to have been taken from his friend, Shri Kamalkant Hirve. Since the amount is below ₹ 20,000/- confirmation letter was not furnished. In the absence of proof of identify, genuineness and creditworthiness of Shri Kamalkant Hrive the AO added the same under section 68 of the Act and the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 11. Even before us no material was furnished to prove the identity of the creditor. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in this regard. Therefore ground No. 2 is rejected. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1002
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has simply stated that entry in regard to this payment though appeared in the incriminating Book No.C-1has not been incorporated in the regular books. No other explanation worth the name was offered by the assessee. In our considered opinion in the absence of any plausible explanation given by the assessee for not incorporating the payment of ₹ 37,000/- made by bank draft in the regular books of account, necessary inference is that he has concealed particulars of his income. The amount having been added under Section 69A of the Act nonetheless is to be treated as income of the assessee and the burden was upon the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in deleting the penalty only on the ground that the addition was made under Section 69A of the Act which is a deeming provision. 8. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assesse
-
2013 (1) TMI 1001
... ...
... ... ..... He noted that lodging and boarding expenses were unusually high. He, therefore, disallowed 10% of ₹ 8,52,696/- being the expenses in connection with lodging and boarding. He, accordingly, disallowed ₹ 85,269/-. 44. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 45. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. It is not disputed that the foreign visits were undertaken for business purposes. Therefore, all the expenditure incurred in course of this visit was to be treated for business purposes only. No disallowance could be made on ad-hoc basis out of lodging and boarding expenses because they were incidental to the foreign visits for business purposes. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(A). 46. In the result, this ground is allowed. 47. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... llow set off of carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation against the incomes of AYS 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been remitted back to the file of the AO for a fresh look (supra), we are of the considered view that the issues raised by the assessee in respect of re-opening of the assessment by the AO and also objecting to the invoking of the provisions of s. 154 of the Act to be remanded back on the file of the AO with a direction to address to the grievances of the assessee and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act after affording an opportunity to the assessee to put-forth its views on these issues. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result (i) the revenue’s appeals for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes; & (ii) the assessee’s appeals for the AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced on the 28th day of January, 2013 at Bangalore.
-
2013 (1) TMI 997
... ...
... ... ..... sessed as capital gain. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern Citicorp Banking Corporation, Bahrain ( supra ) we hold that gains arising from early settlement of forward foreign exchange contract has to be treated as capital gain. We accordingly set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and allow the appeals filed by the assessee.” Since no contrary decision has been brought to our notice, we respectfully follow the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, and hold that the income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are treated as partly allowed. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 996
... ...
... ... ..... ervisor is concerned the Assessing Officer will verify the particulars of payments and if it is the part of salary paid to the Supervisor the same will be subject to deduction only u/s.192. The same can be verified and the addition deleted if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct. 14. As regards site engineering charges the assessee had submitted that the site payments were not made to any outsiders for rendering the work and the charges were incurred by the assessee in the process of verification of the site. The purpose of this expenditure will also be verified by the Assessing Officer to decide whether tax has to be deducted at source or not. 15. With the above direction the issue of disallowance of expenditure on account of non deduction of tax at source of ₹ 37,92,350/- is remitted back to the files of Assessing Officer. 16. In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 04/01/2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 995
... ...
... ... ..... ervisor is concerned the Assessing Officer will verify the particulars of payments and if it is the part of salary paid to the Supervisor the same will be subject to deduction only u/s.192. The same can be verified and the addition deleted if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct. 14. As regards site engineering charges the assessee had submitted that the site payments were not made to any outsiders for rendering the work and the charges were incurred by the assessee in the process of verification of the site. The purpose of this expenditure will also be verified by the Assessing Officer to decide whether tax has to be deducted at source or not. 15. With the above direction the issue of disallowance of expenditure on account of non deduction of tax at source of ₹ 37,92,350/- is remitted back to the files of Assessing Officer. 16. In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 04/01/2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 994
... ...
... ... ..... stock statement prepared during the course of survey was finally provided by the AO to him only in the month of February, 2008 and immediately thereafter the accounts for the year consideration were got audited in the month of March, 2008 and the physical copy of audit report was submitted on 15-04-2008. In our opinion, these assertions made by the assessee on oath in the affidavit are sufficient to show that there was a delay in getting the copy of stock statement prepared during the course of survey from the Department and this delay constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee in getting the accounts audited in time and furnishing the report of such audit within the period prescribed u/s 44AB. In that view of the matter, we cancel the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) u/s 271B and allow this appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 991
... ...
... ... ..... ot; Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Balbir Singh v. CIT 2011 334 ITR 287/196 Taxman 339/ 2010 8 taxmann.com 202 held that when the assessee could not prove gift, the assessment under s. 68 is valid. 8.1 Considering the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee failed to prove her relation with the donor and his creditworthiness. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (supra) and in the case of Smt Sumati Dayal v. CIT 1995 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) held that "the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidences before them by applying the test of human probabilities after considering the surrounding circumstances". If the said test is applied in this matter, it is clearly established that the assessee has failed to prove genuine gift in the matter. We, accordingly, do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... assessee could not be denied by the Revenue. We being in agreement with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in American steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the purchase of goods being from same party, “RRR”, wherein the addition of 20% of the purchase amount was directed to be made as income in the hands of the assessee, we hold that ends of justice shall be met, if the addition on account of purchase made from “RRP” is sustained to the extent of 20% of the total purchases made from “RRP” as income in the hands of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee for both the assessment years before us are partly allowed and the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A.Y.2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are partly allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
........
|
