|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 502 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 916
... ...
... ... ..... ngs A & B have complied with the conditions contemplated u/s.80IB but the project as such could not be treated as completed within the stipulated period. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that on account of assessee being incapacitated in completing the project within the stipulated period, proportionate deduction u/s.80IB should be allowed in the ratio of area completed to sanctioned area. We may clarify that for the purpose of sanctioned area, the size of plot is to be taken at 5100 sq. ft. In the result, this ground is partly allowed". 5. Since the CIT (A) also followed the order of ITAT in assessment year 2005-06 while giving relief, we do not see any reason to differ from the findings of the CIT (A). Respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision, we reject the Revenue grounds. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 915
... ...
... ... ..... ied in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of B.C.Shrinivasa Shetty (supra).” 11. Similarly in the case of Om Shanti Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2550/M/08, the Tribunal has held that “the assessee had not transferred any existing right to the developer nor any cost was incurred/suffered prior to permitting the develop to construct the additional floors. Since there was no cost of acquisition, following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in B.C. Srinivassa Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC), the consideration was held to be not assessable as capital gains.” 12. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements which are directly applicable on the facts of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that no capital gains are liable to be taxed on the facts of the case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.1.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 914
... ...
... ... ..... he order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the revenue. 4. At the time of hearing before the CIT(A), the case before the ITAT was neither fixed nor there was the above decision. The department, therefore, against the decision of the CIT(A), in the instant year, is once again, before the ITAT. 5. At the time of hearing, the AR pointed out that the impugned issue is now covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, as reproduced in the above para. Since the issue has been decided by the coordinate Bench, in the assessee own case and other decisions, as pointed out therein, therefore, respectfully following the same, and since there is no deviation of the facts, we do not find any reason to deviate from the view taken by the coordinate Benches, in the assessee's own case and other decisions referred therein. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 912
... ...
... ... ..... ural income from that land and also 7/12 record shows the nature of land in land revenue record as agriculture. The ld. CIT(A) had inspected the impugned survey nos. personally and found that the distance of both the lands from the Sanand Municipal limit is more than two kilometers. It means it is outside the purview of the Municipal limit. The method to be adopted for measurement is to approach road not straight line Crow’s flight method as held by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in case of CIT vs. Satinder Pal Singh (supra) and ITAT, Mumbai decision in case of Laukik Developers vs. DCIT (supra). Therefore, we have considered view that sale proceeds on above two lands is not covered u/s. 2(14)(iii)(b) of the IT Act as capital assets. Therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is, thus, dismissed. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 24/01/2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 911
... ...
... ... ..... s. The AO has recorded that the assessee is staying in posh bungalow at Satellite area and that the assessee has undertaken foreign visits to Switzerland, UK and USA in the past and that there was no withdrawal by the assessee during the period upto 11.6.2007 and for the period 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008. The CIT(A) considering the facts of the case allowed motor and telephones upto ₹ 35,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- on account of low withdrawals, which we find to be reasonable and justifiable. However, looking to the submissions of the assessee that the assessee is staying all alone since last 10 years and his family is in abroad, to meet ends of justice, a further relief of ₹ 35,000/- is granted to the assessee on this count. Accordingly, we allow further relief of ₹ 35,000/- thus, restricting the disallowance to ₹ 50,000/-. 12. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (1) TMI 910
... ...
... ... ..... noted that the certain units exceeded 1500 sq.ft. and in this regard the Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled deduction under Section 80IB on a proportionate basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) directed to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(10) on a proportionate basis after excluding those units, which are exceeded the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft. 4. Learned DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer here before the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. After considering the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), we found no infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A), who has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee in part following the order of the Tribunal on identical facts. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is hereby confirmed. 7. Resultantly, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of Jan.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 909
... ...
... ... ..... C/B ₹ 2,95,150.82) ₹ 10,628/- Less income already disclosed in the return ₹ 1,55,820/- ₹ 11,42,812/- Rounded off to ₹ 11,40,000/- For the sake of clarity, the above statement is explained herein below by way of fund flow statement - SOURCE OF FUNDS Amount (Rs.) APPLICATION OF FUNDS Amount (Rs.) Returned income 1,55,820 Peak credit (unexplained capital in business) 7,03,440 Accumulated profit brought forward (as explained hereinabove) 1,50,000 Payment to Bhagwati Caterers(personal expenses being drawings) 6,00,000 Erosion of capital (as worked out hereinabove) 10,628 Drawings & savings during the year 1,55,820 Undisclosed income (balance in figure) 11,42,812 Total 14,59,260 Total 14,59,260 Based on the above computation, we sustain the addition of ₹ 11,40,000/- as against ₹ 15,32,778/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 908
Disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D - The AO ascertained some interest being attributable to the earning of exempt income and disallowed the same u/s 14A. - HELD THAT: - The matter requires to go back to the file of the AO for deciding it in the light of MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., CHEMINVEST & OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ESCORTS FINANCE LTD [2011 (11) TMI 267 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2013 (1) TMI 907
... ...
... ... ..... confirmed the order of the AO with out following the said judgment. In this regard Ld Counsel mentioned that the issue may have to be sent back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication and deciding the issue afresh on the quantum of disallowance adopting the reasonable basis as held again by the same judgment for the assessment year prior to AY 2008-2009. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records and the cited judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (supra). Considering the factual matrix of the case as well as the prayer of the Ld Counsel for remanding, we proceed to set aside the ground 2 raised by the assessee for fresh adjudication considering the said judgment. AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground 7 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 906
... ...
... ... ..... ng place under the Act. o p /o p The Apex court held that in terms of the Act that the words 'Extinguishment of any right' in Section 2(47) of the Act, does not include an extinguishment of right on account of destruction. o p /o p It has to be an extinguishment of right on account of transfer. Thus, a destruction of assets when not on account of any transfer would not be hit by Section 54F (3) of the Act. o p /o p 5 Counsel for the revenue seeks to distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. (Supra) that the destruction in that case took place because of fire and hence it was involuntary. This distinction is of no consequence. In our view of the decision of the Apex Court in Vania Silk Mills (Supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. o p /o p 6. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. o p /o p Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 905
Whether assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F - Sale proceeds of the property and investment of the consideration in a new residential building - whether assessees purchased a residential building or not - Held that:- Assessee claimed that since it was residential bungalow at the time of purchase he is entitled to claim deduction - Merely because it was demolished at a later stage it cannot alter the character of purchase of residential house - demolition of an asset does not amount to transfer since there is no transferee and there is no consideration
Held that:- Any extinguishment on account of act of the assessee would amount transfer and the only exception provided therein was the extinguishment on account of act of God - since this aspect was not considered the matter is directed to be reconsidered - Matter remanded back
-
2013 (1) TMI 901
... ...
... ... ..... affidavit of valuation, seeks more time. I am not inclined to grant further time, since last chance has already been granted. List the matter before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate orders for non prosecution.
-
2013 (1) TMI 898
... ...
... ... ..... educted or after deduction has not been paid on or before the due date then, such sum is required to be disallowed while computing total income. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Chandrabhoy & Jassobhoy, have taken a view that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made only when tax had not been deducted at all but in case some tax has been deducted disallowance can not be made and instead in respect of shortfall action under section 201(1) could be taken. The view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of S.K. Tekriwal (supra). Following the said decisions, no disallowance is called for in case of the assessee as the assessee had deducted tax though at lower rate. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 897
Furnished inaccurate particulars of income - penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that:- Transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return - Income was shown as longtern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business - assessee disclosed the names of the companies, description of the shares, date of transfer of shares, sale consideration, cost of acquisition and the index cost and considered the gain as long-term capital - thus there is no allegation of concealment of facts - the addition was made merely because of change in the head of income - Therefore in absence of any inaccuracy in the particulars of income or concealment of facts the penalty must not be levied - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 896
... ...
... ... ..... pugned issue in the assessee's own case, we sustain the decision of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the department. Grounds no. 1, 2 & 3 are therefore, rejected. 9. Ground no. 4 is with regard to CIT(A) admitting new evidence in contravention of Rule 46 of the IT Rules. 10. We have observed that the issue in dispute has been travelling from the preceding year and the coordinate Bench has already given a precise finding on facts. Moreover, the DR has not been able to pin point as to what new evidence was considered by the CIT(A), while 4 Ms. Asha K. Ringshia ITA No. 6566/Mum/2011 deciding the instant impugned order of the CIT(A), which contravened Rule 46A and not 46 (as mentioned in the grounds of appeal). 11. In these circumstances, we reject the grounds, as raised by the department. 12. Grounds no. 5 & 6 are general in nature. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 895
... ...
... ... ..... additional income of ₹ 1,16,31,103/- (unexplained investment) on account of unexplained jewellery, house hold expenditure etc. in assessment year 2009-10. In assessment year 2009-10, ₹ 1.00 crore has been shown as additional income as misc. provisions, utilized for jewellery, house hold expenses etc. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that considering the facts, it will be unjustified to make addition of ₹ 20,43,220/- when the assessee has already surrendered / offered ₹ 1.00 crore inter alia including jewellery of the items otherwise it will lead to double taxation on the same issue. 5.8 In view of the above findings of the ld. CIT(A), we hold that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold his order and reject ground of appeal taken by the Department. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and s C.O. of the assessee is allowed in part. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 893
... ...
... ... ..... enses relating to exempt income under section 14A of the Act. Under the said provisions, the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income is required to be computed as per Rule 8D. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81) have held that Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and in respect of prior years, it was held that disallowance had to be made on a reasonable basis after hearing the assessee. In this case, CIT(A) directed the AO to make disallowance as per Rule 8D which is not correct. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for necessary examination in the light of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT (supra) and for passing a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee . 6. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.01. 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 892
Whether the income earned from the sale of shares is admissible as business income or capital gains - Held that:- The assessee was carrying business of investment in shares for last 30 years and for the last 25 years was assessed to tax under the head capital gains and not under the head of profit and gains of business by the revenue - The revenue never treated the shares as stock in trade of the respondent assessee - hence assessee is not carrying on business of shares trading- thus no question of law arises - appeal is dismissed in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 891
Capitalisation as a part of Expenses - Assessee company is engaged in the business of commercial construction claimed deduction in respect to administrative expenses, employee's remuneration and interest. AO said that these costs ought to have been also capitalized and, accordingly, the assessee had under-disclosed profit. Assessee explained that the construction to the extent not sold, i.e., on which no profit stands booked yet, represents only the assessee’s work-in-progress (WIP), i.e., stock-in-trade, and not a purchase of any asset/s. In fact, even if it were so, i.e., on capital account, the interest on borrowed capital would be allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii).
HELD THAT:- (i) Administrative expenses & Employee's Remuneration - Any cost that adds value thereto, i.e., enables the bringing of the relevant inventory to the stage of its completion and location as at the year-end, is to be taken into account for the purpose. Administrative expenses, as it appears, are only general in nature, and even with regard to the employee’s remuneration, there is nothing to indicate that it represents an element of either direct cost of production or even of production overhead, which only would enable its inclusion as a part of the cost of production/construction. As such, being fixed (period) cost, these stand to be written off to the profit and loss account in the year of being incurred.
Entire addition to the returned income is accordingly deleted.
ii) Interest Expenditure- Deduction u/s 36 (1)(iii) - Allowed or not? - A project, or part thereof, may be partly sold or even remain unsold for quite some time after its completion. While revenue would stand to be booked only on the part, if any, sold, the interest cost would continue to be incurred on the entire capital, even as no corresponding gain inures in terms of value addition to the project, which stands in fact completed, so as to increase its cost by loading the said cost thereon. It is for these reasons that interest (financing) cost is normally considered as only a period (fixed) cost, and charged to the operating statement for the year in which the same is incurred.
Relying on the judgement of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION INDS. LTD. [2003 (1) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], interest cost is to allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii), irrespective of whether it stands incurred in relation to stock-in-trade or on capital account, as the said section draws no such distinction.
Decision in favour of Assessee.
Disclosure of Gross Profit - In the verification proceedings u/s.143(3), it was explained that the said project had been completed as at the year-end up to 34%, and that the profit was booked and returned following the project percentage method, disclosing a gross profit of 23% on the cost of production as capitalized during the year - HELD THAT:- Considering the said cost as includable in the project cost may have a direct bearing on the gross profit rate, and which may therefore stand to decline from the reported and accepted rate of 23%, and cannot be presumed be remain as such, i.e., unchanged. Thus, no adjustment to the disclosed gross profit rate, on account of any of three items of expenditure under reference, is required under the given facts and circumstances of the case.
Revenue Appeal dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 890
... ...
... ... ..... eduction in the subsequent years available to the assessee cannot be withdrawn in the absence of the claim for Section 35D of the Act being set aside in the first year i.e. the year when it was examined and granted i.e. assessment year 2000-01. Further, the Tribunal has held that as expenses are of revenue nature, the issue itself becomes academic. In view of the fact that the order allowing amortization of share issue expenses under Section 35D for the first year, that is, the assessment year 2000-01 has been accepted by the department, the deduction for the subsequent years must follow as a matter of course as correctly held by the Tribunal. 10 In view of the above, according to us, the question as formulated can not be entertained as the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, these three appeals are dismissed on the both proposed question of law as formulated by the revenue. 11 In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
........
|
