|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 502 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... issue dealt with by the Assessing Officer for making the adjustments is in the nature of debatable issues, and it cannot be dealt with by the Assessing Officer under S.143(1) of the Act. Being so, the CIT(A) observed that as seen from the provisions of S.115JB(2) with particular reference to Explanation (1) to S.115JB(2), the assessee being a sick company in the year under consideration and the net worth having become negative, the provisions of S.115JB are not applicable, and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in this behalf, and in any event, the Assessing Officer cannot take up the issues which are debatable while dealing with the returns in terms of S.143(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which are accordingly rejected. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 23.01.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 960
... ...
... ... ..... nd not under the relevant section i.e. 54F of the Act, the assessment was completed after making an addition of ₹ 9,36,768/-. In the above said facts and circumstances, where the assessee had acted bonafidely and declared all particulars of its income in the return of income filed by the assessee, mere claim of deduction in a section other than the relevant section does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, even though there was default in declaration of the total income for the year under consideration. In view of the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we find that the assessee had reasonable cause and the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 31st of January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 955
Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 14A - Held that:- We note that one of the ingredient to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is not satisfied viz. prejudice to the revenue. As pointed out by the Tribunal the respondent is being assessed to tax on book profits under Section 115JB of the Act and even if the dis-allowance is higher than that allowed by Assessing officer under Section 14A of the Act would not have any effect on the book profits on which the tax is payable. Thus the entire exercise is academic.
-
2013 (1) TMI 953
... ...
... ... ..... come from undisclosed sources and not as business income. The Tribunal having already held that the income of the assessee was to be taxed as business income and not as income from undisclosed sources, deleted the addition in relation to interest expenditure. However, before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer had pointed out that interest amounting to ₹ 42,87,359/had not been paid to the Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank and as such was not allowable under section 43B of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, confirmed the addition to the extent of ₹ 42,87,359/since the assessee had not paid the amount and deleted addition to the extent of ₹ 1,69,12,024/. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in relation to proposed question no.2 are merely by way of necessary corollary to the conclusion arrived at in relation to proposed question no.1 and as such do not give rise to a question of law as proposed or otherwise. In the result, present Tax Appeal is also dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 950
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee-firm has paid the ESI amounts before the due date for filing the return of income. Accordingly, he submitted that the entire amount is allowable. However, he could not furnish the details of the dates of payment of ESI contributions. The instant issue has since been settled by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. ( 213 CTR 268) and CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) and also by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Sharma (297 ITR 320). In view of the above said decisions, this issue needs fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with the decisions referred supra. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 11-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 949
... ...
... ... ..... gh his counsel and he was required to look after the appeal. However, the counsel could not appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed for hearing nor he communicated such date of hearing to assessee. It is submitted that he was under bonafide belief that the matter will be properly attended by his counsel. In view of this, it is prayed to recall the exparte order dt.12.3.2012 and the appeal be fixed for hearing on merits. Assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard. 4. We have considered the contents of miscellaneous application and submissions of ld D.R. Considering the facts of the case, we are satisfied that non-appearance of assessee on the date of hearing was due to a reasonable cause. We, in the interest of justice, recall the order of Tribunal dated 12.3.2012 and direct the Registry to fix the appeal in due course before 'D' Bench. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 11th January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 948
... ...
... ... ..... that operation of this judgment is restricted to the AO and it does not, in any way, affect the powers of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to examine and allow assessee's claim about the eligible amount of double taxation credit as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. Ground No.5 is against giving credit of only ₹ 1,79,44,144/- as against claim of ₹ 1,96,04,867/- without assigning any reason and without providing any opportunity to the assessee. On this issue again we direct the AO to examine this aspect of allowing of short credit of the tax as per law and decide it afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. The last ground about the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C is consequential. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 945
... ...
... ... ..... esorting to reassessment proceedings. The law is well settled that validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings have to be judged on the basis of reasons recorded by the AO and it is not possible to substitute, delete or add anything to such reasons recorded by the AO. It is also not possible to draw any inference based on the reasons not recorded. In the light of the law as laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO in the present case is not in accordance with the law. The order of reassessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled. 15. In view of the decision on the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the other issues raised by the assessee on merits do not require any consideration. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 11th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 938
... ...
... ... ..... were from the other High courts and ITAT. At no stage of hearing, the CIT (A) confronted the assessee or his counsel with these judgments or gave an opportunity to explain its case in terms of the judgments. The ld. AR pleads that this appeal may be restored to the file of the CIT (A) and the CIT (A) may be directed to give an opportunity to assessee to explain his case with reference to these judgments. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR was also not having any serious objection of restoring the issues to the file of the CIT (A). 5. After hearing both the sides on the issue, we find it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction that CIT (A) shall make available the copy of unreported judgments of the other High Courts and ITAT and then decide the issues afresh. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 10th day of January, 2013 after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2013 (1) TMI 936
... ...
... ... ..... ers of M/s.Xelo Pty. Limited (supra) and Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (supra), question (a) as proposed cannot be entertained. 3. So far as question (b) is concerned, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as the Tribunal have reached a finding of fact that the respondent-assessee was maintaining regular books of account and had even submitted the same to the assessing officer for verification, who also verified the same. Consequently, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as the Tribunal held that the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the respondent-assessee without explaining as to why the accounts are suspect. Consequently, no occasion to apply Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 to estimate the income can arise. Thus, this being a finding of fact and the same is not shown to be perverse by the Revenue, question (b) as proposed cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 935
... ...
... ... ..... . Vandana Properties Income Tax Appeal No.3633 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.4361 of 2010 decided on 28th March, 2012 in favour of the respondent-assessee. 3. However, it is the grievance of the revenue that the observation in the impugned order and approval of the layout plan is different from the approval of the building plan and while granting the benefit under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 what has to be considered is the sanction of the building plan and not the layout plan needs consideration. Since the question raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Vandapa Properties (supra), we dispose of the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid decision. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the deduction under Section 80IB based on the aproval of the layout plan / building plan and leave it tobe decided in an appropriate case. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 934
... ...
... ... ..... income as such. There is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars. So it is not at all necessary even to mention the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 306 ITR 277 (SC). 11. This is a simple case where the Assessing Officer has for valid reasons disallowed a portion of the depreciation claimed by the assessee. The said disallowance was added to the income of the assessee. This is a normal exercise of any scrutiny assessment. This case cannot be stretched beyond this. This case cannot be made out as a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 12. The Assessing Officer has erred in law in levying penalty in this file. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty. His order is upheld. 13. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. The order pronounced on Wednesday, the 30th day of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 929
Interest on Fixed Deposits - Netting of interest income on FD with interest expenses on borrowings for setting up of business u/s 57(iii) - Assessee had obtained large amount of secured loan, out of which it had invested an amount in FD in banks, from which it had earned interest. Since the assessee had not commenced business operation, the AO was of the view that the said amount of interest earned on that FDS in banks, is taxable as income under the head ‘income from other sources.’ - HELD THAT:- The interest income earned during the year by the assessee, from the FDs made out of borrowed funds was rightly taxed by the AO. Interest payable on borrowed funds has no connection with the receipt of interest. The interest payable on the loans out which the FDs were made is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii).
Decision in the case of TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT], relied upon.
Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 928
Addition in respect of unverifiable Sundry Creditors - addition u/s 41 - Held that:- We find that ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by holding that no condition required to make addition towards remission or cessation of liability as per provisions of section 41(1) of the Act is fulfilled in this case, therefore the A.O. was not justified in making the addition by invoking the provisions of this section - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (1) TMI 923
... ...
... ... ..... addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- only on the same issue and the Tribunal dismissed the department appeal vide order dated 17.09.2010. Since the assessee has shown better results in the assessment year under appeal as compared to the earlier years and has maintained the same nature of business, therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply the profit rate of 6 in order to make addition against the assessee. Considering the earlier history of the assessee and orders of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee, it would be reasonable and appropriate to maintain addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- in all on this issue instead of directing to apply profit rate of 6 . The orders of the authorities below are, therefore, modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (1) TMI 922
... ...
... ... ..... cts. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appeal, allowed certain expenditure vide page 7 & 8 of his order. 31.3 The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the A.O. 31.4 The Ld. counsel; for the assessee, Mr. R.K. Gupta, CA, relied upon the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). 31.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that certain expenditure were crystalised during the year as mentioned at page 7 & 8 of the order and therefore, the same are allowable during the impugned year. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard and he has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenses. Thus, ground No.7 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 32. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 43, 53, 85, 86 & 418(Asr)2012 are dismissed and C.O Nos. 04, 05,06 & 33(Asr)/2012 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 921
Whether the order passed u/s 144C is valid - Held that - the assessee could have filed the objections there against before the DRP within 30 days of the receipt of the said order - while the assessee filed the objections before the DRP with delay of 13 days and that there was no liberty with the DRP to condone such delay - DRP has also not given any direction to pass the order as per the draft assessment order - instant appeal is not covered by the provisions of section 253(1)(d) of the Act - Decided against the assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... Officer was to be directed to adopt the fair market value of the asset on 1.4.1981. Since the registered valuer’s report was filed in the course of assessment itself but Assessing Officer had not rejected the same on merits, the Assessing Officer was to be directed to accept the value ₹ 3,80,000 as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of working out the capital gains after due examination..” 2.8 In view of the above decision of Coordinate Bench whose facts are identical to the facts before us, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to consider fair market value as on 01-04-1981 on the basis of report of registered valuer and also to take into account the indexed cost of improvement and thereafter compute Long term capital gain and tax liability. Accordingly, we uphold her order and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Department. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 918
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Since an addition under section 68 or for that purpose cannot be taken as income under any specific heads of income, it cannot also be treated as ‘business income’. In this view of the matter, we hold that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition under section 68 of the Act in assessee’s case is liable to be treated as assessee’s ‘business income’. Therefore, we allow the instant appeal and restore the findings of the Assessing Officer. Revenue’s appeal stands accepted.
-
2013 (1) TMI 917
... ...
... ... ..... ng u/s 263 of the Act. That apart the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Emico KCP Limited V/s. CIT (242 ITR 659) was also not considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in SSI Limited V/s. DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 was also considered by the co-ordinate Bench in its order passed for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The issue involved in the present appeal being same and identical with the issues decided in case of the assessee for the preceding assessment years by the co- ordinate bench as referred to above, we respectfully follow the same and hold that the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of allotment of shares under ESOP is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT (A) is confirmed. Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 31 -01-2013.
........
|
