|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 502 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 989
... ...
... ... ..... hich has been filed on 04.03.2011. The ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.-2130/Del/2009 and 2131/Del/2009 has observed that the assessee is in process to take suitable steps in the matter with the CBDT for condonation of the delay and matter was restored to Assessing Officer to re-examine and decide afresh. Now, the assessee has already filed the application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2) of the Income-tax Act on 04.03.2011. In the interest of justice and equity, we are inclined to agree with the prayer of the learned AR to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh.” 7. The facts and circumstances of the present case are same as in earlier year. Therefore, following the above Tribunal’s order, we deem it fit to remit the case to the office of AO for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 988
... ...
... ... ..... this sum from the company, M/s Medimark Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee was a Director, as loan during the year. We find that on the above facts, the CIT(A)’s order has been passed after following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Baroda Tin Works(supra) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai, ‘E' Bench, in the case of Sunilchandra Vohra vs ACIT, in I.T.A.No. 4963/Mumbai/2006. The CIT/DR could not point out as to why the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal are not applicable in the instant case. No specific error in the order of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the CIT/DR. We, therefore, 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 are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 987
... ...
... ... ..... ered the rival submissions and are of the view that simply because the assessee was a working partner in M/s Anand Transport Company, it cannot be held that income earned by partnership firm M/s Anand Transport Company belonged to the assessee. No other material or evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer for treating the income earned by firm as income of assessee in his individual capacity. Without bringing sufficient evidence on record, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. As the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on substantive basis in the hands of partnership firm M/s Anand Transport Company, we, therefore, confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly dismiss this common ground of appeal for all the assessment years involved. 48. Finally, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. This order was pronounced on 31.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 986
... ...
... ... ..... he orders and heard the submissions. The Tribunal had, for assessment year 2006-07, confirmed the view taken by the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the payments effected by the assessee to M/s Abaqus Inc., were not royalty. Finding of the Tribunal was that what was acquired by the assessee was only a right of use a copyrighted software and not copyright in a software. In the assessment order itself, the A.O. has mentioned that the disallowance was being made despite Tribunal’s ruling in favour of the assessee for keeping alive the issue. However, learned D.R. was unable to show any order of any higher authorities which would make the Tribunal order for assessment year 2006-07 inoperative. We, therefore, find no error in the order of CIT(Appeals) applying the Tribunal order for assessment year 2006-07 and ruling in favour of assessee. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Tuesday, the 22nd of January, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 985
... ...
... ... ..... e., section 234D came into operation on and from June 1, 2003, which is well prior to the completion of the regular assessment, certainly, the assessee is liable to pay interest on the excess refund amount received and enjoyed by him all these years as contemplated under section 234D of the Act.”. 10. From the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court it is very clear that sec. 234D is applicable from the date it came into the statute book, i.e. from 01-06-2003 and therefore the assessee is liable to pay the interest from the date on which the amended provision of law came into operation. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court we reverse the finding of the CIT(Appeals) and allow the ground raised by the Revenue. 11. In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos. 992, 994 and 995/Mds/2012 are dismissed and the appeal in ITA No. 993/Mds/2012 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 984
... ...
... ... ..... he case of CIT v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. ignoring the fact that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts and in law?”. 2 Counsel for the parties state that the above question of law stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of IncomeTax v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 175. Thus, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. 3 In view of the above, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 983
... ...
... ... ..... t and that the addition is made by following the stand of the revenue in the earlier years to keep the issue alive. The first appellate authority applied the decision of the tribunal and deleted the addition. We see no infirmity in the same. In fact, ground 1B of the revenue appeals states that the ground is taken because the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, we respectfully apply the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for earlier years and dismiss the ground taken by the revenue. In view of the same, ground of appeal No.1 is rejected.” 5. As no distinguishing facts have been brought on record by the Ld. Departmental Representative, we have no hesitation in following the decision of the Tribunal (supra). Accordingly, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.1.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 982
... ...
... ... ..... y the CIT(A) as unexplained deposits and rejected the assessee’s ground. ITA No.1303/Mds./12 10. In this appeal as well, the assessee is one of the Directors/shareholder of M/s.Shree Velu Builders Private Ltd. Referring to the grounds raised in the appeal, both learned representatives are in unison that our findings in ITA No.1300/Mds./12 also cover the instant case as well. After having considered the above submissions in detail, we find this appeal also involve question of applicability of Sec.2(22)(e) which we have decided in favour of the assessee in ITA No.1300/Mds./12 herein above. In the light thereof, we accept this appeal in part and delete the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 11. To sum up, all appeals filed by assessee ITA Nos.1300/Mds/12, 1301/Mds./12, 1302/Mds/12 & 1303/Mds./12 are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals ITA Nos.1335/Mds/12 & 1337/Mds/12 are dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 29th January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 980
... ...
... ... ..... RATH, J. For orders see ITA No. 50 of 2012, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/s Vardhman Holdings Ltd, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.
-
2013 (1) TMI 978
... ...
... ... ..... the merits of the case.” 5 It is clear that the assessee has accepted that there was a mistake in the details and the quantitative figures of stock as given in the Schedule 17. Therefore, on principle we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned revision order passed by the CIT. However, since it was stated to be a mistake by applying wrong conversion factor by the assessee which has resulted the discrepancy in the quantitative stock of purchase; therefore, this aspect requires examination of the facts. The relevant record is not available before us and both the parties agreed that this issue may be examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify and examine this aspect after considering the relevant records and submissions of the assessee. 6 In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronouncement in the Open Court on this 23rd, day of Jan 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... 5% could not be said to be excessive, considering the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant assessment year 2007-2008. Once it is found that the rate of interest paid to two coparceners at 15% is not excessive, no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The loans raised from two coparceners could be safely relied upon by the assessee-HUF as the coparceners may not demand the amount of loan back in the near future and the level of confidentiality is obviously more with regard to these coparceners. In view of the fact that the interest paid to coparceners at the rate of 15% could not be said to be excessive, we hold that the provision of Section 40A(2)(b) was wrongly invoked in this case. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 42,112/- is deleted and the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (1) TMI 975
... ...
... ... ..... thorough verification of the agreement entered by the NHAI with the collecting entities and other various provisions of the Rules made by the Government in regard to the management of toll plazas. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A)’s orders in all these appeals are not at all infirm in any way requiring interference and hence, we uphold the same by finding the issues raised by the Department as devoid of merit and as such, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue in respect of both the assessees. 10. Now coming to the Cross objections filed by the assessees, it is seen that the assessees have supported the orders of the learned CIT(A). In view of our finding in the appeals filed by the Revenue, the Cross objections filed by the assessee are disposed of accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (1) TMI 973
... ...
... ... ..... ar as catena of the judgments submitted by the AR of the assessee, we notice that they only pertain to section 80IA(4)(i)(b) i.e. regarding the issue of contractor viz-a-vis developer. Hence, we do not deem it appropriate to decide on the said issue since the assessee does not fulfill the condition enumerated in the first part of the statutory provision. We make it clear that although the issue adjudicated by us has not been looked into by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), but in the larger interest of the justice and in view of the fact that before availing deduction under section 80IA, all the necessary conditions have to be satisfied we have proceeded to examine the applicability of the deduction provision contained in section 80IA(4)(i) of the “Act”. 10. Consequently, in the light of our above discussion, the assessee’s appeal fails. Accordingly it is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 15th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 972
... ...
... ... ..... benefit of section 11 to the assessee- trust. Concomitantly, we do not find any violation by the trust of any provisions of section 11 and/or of section 13 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption as provided u/s 11 of the Act. Having held so, interest levied u/s 234A and 234B will also not survive. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.” Since the facts of the case for the 2003-04 are identical to the facts for the Asst. Year 2005-06, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra) in assessee’s own case for the Asst. Year 2005-06, we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption under sec.11 of the I.T. Act for the Asst. Year 2003-04 also. Thus, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced on Friday, the 11th January 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... zance of Section 50, which is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets, which mandates that capital gains arising on the transfer of depreciable assets of a block shall be deemed to be capital gains arising from the transfer of short term capital assets and thus excludes available of exemption u/s.54EC which is applicable only in regard to long term capital gains ? 2. The Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. M/s. ACE Builders Pv.t. Ltd. reported in 281 I.T.R 201 (Bom) and the same covers the issue raised in the present appeal. Hence we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 968
Excise Duty written off - Deduction u/s 37 - AO noted that some amount was written off by debiting the P&L account pertaining to Excise Duty. According to govt scheme, assessee opted to avail a route of exemption of excise duty. AO was not convinced and said that the impugned deduction is allowable against the future expenses, thus assessee was not entitled to write off the such amount in the year under consideration. - HELD THAT :- It is evident that the assessee has opted for the exemption route without availing excise duty as per the scheme of govt., therefore, unutilized excise duty as availed on the inputs, was written off in the regular books of accounts fully satisfying the conditions as laid down in s 37. Also, assessee has already surrendered its license under the Excise Act and opted for the exemption route and hence, there is no question of setting off the said expenditure in future. Thus, claim is allowed.
Decision in the cases of GIRDHAR FIBRES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 SURAT [2012 (11) TMI 161 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] and MOHAN SPG. MILLS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA [2013 (11) TMI 113 - ITAT CHANDIGARH], relied upon.
-
2013 (1) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Poonawala Finvest & Agro P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Trumac Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) and the Ahamedabad Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT(OSD) Vs. Parry Engineering & Electronics P. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the power evacuation infrastructure facility is part and parcel of the windmill though partly owned by the assessee on which the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation at the same rate on which depreciation was allowed on the windmill. Further the assessee is also entitled to the claim of depreciation at higher rate on the transmission lines which again are part and parcel of the windmill. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss ground No.3 raised by the Revenue. 34. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax (A) both have rejected some of figures of the accounts regarding his undisclosed account and accepted some part of it. Moreover, we find note that assessee has submitted some additional fresh evidence which the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rejected for admission. We further note that it was assessee’s submissions before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that Assessing Officer has provided very short time to comply with the requirements. Against this background, in our considered opinion, the matter should be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh in light of the additional evidences and submissions furnished by the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/1/2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 964
... ...
... ... ..... ome was earned on FDR, therefore, the AO treated the same as income from other sources. The CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 7. After considering the order of the AO and CIT(A), I found that this issue also needs reverification. It was pleaded by the learned AR of the assessee that the assessee had paid interest of ₹ 1.5 lakh and has earned only 1.20 lakhs, therefore, netting of both he interest has to be allowed which has not been considered by the learned AO or by the learned CIT(A). The AO also looked into the matter that there is no independent source of interest and learned AR’s contention that this should also go to the head of WIP. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I restore this issue to the file of the AO. 8. Ground No.5 was not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of Jan.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... nds on this issue are accordingly rejected.” 8. Therefore, the sub-brokerage paid is in relation to units of Mutual Funds. From the details placed on record, we are convinced that the sub-brokerage paid is connected with the services rendered by the sub-broker to the assessee in the course of buying and selling of units of Mutual Funds or in relation to transactions pertaining to Mutual Funds and accordingly, as per the provisions of section 194H Explanation (i), impugned payments are not covered by the provision. Revenue has not filed any other decision contrary to the above decision of the Tribunal before us. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the Revenue is decided in favour of the assessee and the order of the CIT (A) does not call any interference. Accordingly, ground 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of January, 2013.
........
|
