|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 834
Nature of income earned by the assessees from purchase and sale of shares through Portfolio Management Scheme - Held that:- Assessees have been making investments in shares and units of mutual funds for several years which had been declared as investment in the books and income from which was being declared as capital gain and accepted by the department - with AY 2003-04 assessee started making investment through PMS - PMS Manager was authorized to purchase, acquire, obtain, take, hold, sell, transfer, substitute or change all or any of the investments made on behalf of the assessee - average holding period of the shares was more than two months - accordingly the income earned from PMS has to be assessed as capital gain - Decided as per assessees own case for the earlier years - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 833
... ...
... ... ..... was offered to Tax in the earlier years will be claimed as a deduction at the time of assessment.” 53. However, we find that the assessment order is silent on this issue. The assessee, before us, claimed that the relevant ground of appeal was also not adjudicated upon by the CIT(A). Considering the fact that Ground Nos.2 and 5 of the appeal for assessment year 1995- 96 have already been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, it shall be fair and reasonable to restore this also back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the issue by passing a speaking order. Thus, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 54. To summarize the result, I.T.A.No. 2412/Mds/2003 for assessment year 1994-95 is dismissed, I.T.A.No. 323/Mds/2003 for assessment year 1995-96 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and I.T.A.No. 694/Mds/2001 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 832
... ...
... ... ..... fficer that the cement segment business and advancement of funds for the same purpose was not part and parcel of the finance activity of the assessee company. 13. Ld. DR submitted that the cement manufacturing business was not a core business segment of the assessee company as assessee company being an NFBC registered with RBI engaged in the business was not permitted for manufacturing of cement business activities. The DR supported the findings of the authorities below. 14. After careful consideration of submissions of both the parties mentioned hereinabove, we observe that as we have already disallowed the appeal of the revenue and we have upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), accordingly this issue becomes infructuous and academic and we do not find any merit in the C.O. of the assessee and we dismiss the same. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 831
... ...
... ... ..... made by assessee are contradictory in the sense that the ledger account was showing consultancy charges paid to Mr. Kushalchand and website job work against payment to Ms. Aparna. 11. The learned Counsel fairly admitted that they have no information on these two people whether they are qualified or not but the fact is that they have been paid only stipend for developing the website and Retainership for doing miscellaneous work in the office. Since assessee is not in a position to justify that these amounts are paid towards stipend/Retainership /salary, the presumption made by AO and the CIT (A) that they render professional service on the basis of ledger accounts has to be accepted. In view of this, as there is violation of provisions of TDS, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is justified. Therefore, we uphold the order of AO and reject Ground No.5. 12. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 830
Business Expenditure - Annual Event Celebration expenses - Whether the expenditure incurred on carrying out a contract work on annual event celebrated by the naval staff is allowable under section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- the amount was contributed to the function of Naval Staff which is necessary for the purpose of a business, being a contractor doing the work in the Naval facility,therefore expenditure is allowable under section 37(1).
The expenditure should be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the I.T. Act 1961.
-
2013 (1) TMI 829
... ...
... ... ..... red in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mittal Court Premises Cooperative Society Ltd. 320 ITR 414 wherein it was held that the object of nonoccupancy charges collected by the assessee society from its members as per byelaws was to increase its funds which could be utilized to provide services, amenities and facilities to its members. It was held that the principle of mutuality, therefore, was applicable to the non-occupancy charges and the same were not taxable in the hands of the assessee society. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mittal Court Premises Cooperative Society, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of non-occupancy charges and dismiss ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 11th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 828
... ...
... ... ..... ess or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' in clause (b) of Explanation 3 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression 'any other business or commercial right of a similar nature'. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). In the circumstances, we are of the view that 'Goodwill' is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act".” 5. After hearing both sides and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 (supra), we dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 14th day of January, 2013 after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2013 (1) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... ent. On same set of facts, the issue of ALP determination was considered by Dispute Resolution Panel at Chennai in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. In their direction dated 4-6-2012 issued under section 144C(5), the Panel has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the PLI at 13.35 as against the PLI of 21.86 adopted in the assessment. This shows that the upward adjustment made in the impugned assessment is quite arbitrary. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration all the aspects, we determine the PLI of the assessee for the impugned assessment year 2007-08 at 7 as against 25.44 adopted by the TPO. The quantum of ALP adjustment will be modified to the above extent. 10. The assessee is partly successful in its ground relating to ALP adjustment. 11. In result this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 8th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 826
... ...
... ... ..... nt of ₹ 1,02,064/- taken on loan from six parties by the assessee. Therefore, in my considered view the genuineness of the transaction of loans should not have been doubted either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A). They should had been accepted by the learned CIT(A) and if he was not satisfy, then he could made further enquiry by asking for a remand report from the Assessing Officer or directly as the learned CIT(A) can proceed using his co-terminus powers. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, I hold that addition of ₹ 1,02,064/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act was not justified. Learned CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming the same. Accordingly, I delete the addition of ₹ 1,02,064/-. Since, I have deleted the addition on merit, therefore, I am not inclined to dispose of the legal ground at this stage. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 825
Tax on Job work - Bleaching, dyeing, processing and printing of gray cloth on the ground that there is no transfer of any goods involved in such activity - Held that: - Similar controversy came up for consideration before this court in Writ Petition No. 1683 of 2007 ( M/s. Super Fine Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others [2013 (6) TMI 482 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and four other connected writ petitions and this court vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 had held that the decision taken by the State Government on 7.10.2005, on the representation made by two such similarly situated persons as also the Northern India Textile Processors Association would be binding on the Assessing Authority within the State of U.P. wherein it has been held that colour, dye, chemicals, etc. used in bleaching, dyeing, processing and printing of gray cloth are consumable and are not transferred and not included in the definition of sale and the writ petitions were allowed - Petition allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 824
... ...
... ... ..... ractice had been accepted by the Revenue. These are matters which on merits will be considered by the Assessing Officer and it would be inappropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the merits of issue. Moreover, once the Court has come to the conclusion that even a single ground on the basis of which the assessment is sought to be reopened is valid and within jurisdiction, the notice for reopening of the assessment would have to be upheld. Consequently, we clarify that though submissions have been urged on the merits of each of the grounds, we keep all rights and contentions of the parties open to be urged before the Assessing Officer, once the assessment is reopened in exercise of the power conferred by Section 147. The Assessing Officer has acted within jurisdiction in reopening the assessment. 11. For these reasons, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. We accordingly dismiss the Petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 823
... ...
... ... ..... en by the Assessing Officer, at any point of time either while giving effect to the order of CIT dt.08.03.2006 or consequent to the rectification filed by the assessee in the order dated 18.03.2011, we, in the interests of justice, direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of prior period expenses, determine the year of crystalisation/accrual and then accordingly allow the expenditure either in this year or in any other year by modifying the relevant orders, if required. For this purpose, we set aside the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for implementing the orders in their entirety. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. With these directions, appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 18th January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 822
... ...
... ... ..... n to the petitioner. The impugned order of assessment being in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is set aside and quashed. It will, however, be open to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order of assessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after furnishing the petitioner with photocopies of the requisite documents at the cost of the petitioner. If any documents cannot be supplied, the reasons for not supplying the same should be disclosed and the petitioner might be given inspection of the same. The Adjudicating Authority shall ensure that copies of the documents relied in the show cause notice are furnished to the petitioner. Affidavits not having been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition, save those which are matters of records, shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. AR(CR)
-
2013 (1) TMI 821
... ...
... ... ..... aid tax on other income shown as ₹ 27,800 only instead of ₹ 66,437. Hence, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 38,637/- in this regard. 14. In the impugned order, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) confirmed this addition with a finding that the assessee has earned income on fixed deposits following the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. 289 ITR 475 (Del) wherein it was held that the interest income earned on fixed deposit has to be necessarily treated as income from other sources. 15. In view of above, addition made by the Assessing Officer and its confirmation by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) is justified and we have no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, C.O. No. 2 is also dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 820
... ...
... ... ..... as it gives rise to double deduction though such deduction is not specifically provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ” 2. Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Institute of Banking reported in 2003 264 ITR 110 (Bom). We note that the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the Institute of Banking (supra). In the circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 819
Whether the purchases amounts to Bogus purchase - disallowance of interest - Held that:- assessee has furnished sufficient evidence in the form of Bank account, copy of Sales Tax return etc - comparison of the G.P. shows that the purchases were genuine - Thus the addition on account of bogus purchases is not warranted - Decided if favor of assessee
Held that:- Assessee had taken loan of ₹ 20,75,000/- in his individual capacity and not for the business - Further the loan was transferred to the partnership firm and thus used for the purpose of business - interest paid thereon is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 818
... ...
... ... ..... of section 135 to reduce the sentence even if conviction is maintained. 31. The fact remains as to whether while bringing conviction under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 135 of the Act of 1962 it can be maintained as was given by the trial court. Looking to the nature of this case and the facts, no interference is caused in the sentence other than modification in the conviction and sentence under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 135 of the Act of 1962. With the aforesaid and without causing interference but with modification in the conviction and sentence under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 135 of the Act of 1962, this criminal revision petition is disposed of. 32. This judgment has been rendered in reference to un-amended provision of the Act of 1962 as was existing at the time of incidence thus this judgment would apply to the provisions then existing. This clarification is given in view of subsequent amendment made in the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2013 (1) TMI 817
... ...
... ... ..... leviable on Construction of Residential Complexes for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation. Prima facie, we held against the levy of service tax and granted waiver and stay in the cited case. It is not in dispute that the facts of the present case are similar to those considered in the above stay order. Hence, there will be waiver and stay as prayed for in these appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (1) TMI 816
Disallowance of commision expense and travelling expense - Held that:- The assessee claimed 10% commission on sale of fire fighting vehicles to Director of Fire and Emergency Services, JandK which is an undertaking of Government of Jammu and Kashmir (JandK), Srinagar - A.O. disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that commission was not paid for the purpose of business - the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in support of the claim that commission was paid against the services rendered - settled law that mere payment itself would not entitle the assessee to deduction of such commission unless the same is proved to be paid for commercial consideration and expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The onus of proof is always on the assessee - When supply of goods is made to Government Departments, commission is not allowable unless it is established that commission was paid for services other than services related to supply of goods to Government Department - Hence commission expenditure in respect of goods supplied to Government Department can not be said to be an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and secondly it would be disqualified under explanation to section 37(1) as being opposed to public policy
As regards the traveling expenses claimed by the assessee, it pertains to Commission Agent - Since the commission payment itself is disallowed as non-genuine, therefore, there is no question of allowing traveling expenses on Commission Agent since the expenditures were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - decided in favor of Revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 815
... ...
... ... ..... We hold so by following the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kelvinator (India) Ltd (supra). Other judgements cited by the Ld. A.R. are also supporting this view taken by us because this is admitted position in the light of the reasons recorded by the A.O. that no new material had been brought on record by the A.O. and except one, there is no subsequent amendment in law and even this one amendment was not properly considered by the A.O. We, therefore, hold that the reopening in the present case is not valid in both the years. 12. In view of the above decision as per which, we rejected the validity of reopening as per above para, the other grounds raised by the assessee in both these years about merit of various additions/disallowances, do not call for any adjudication because the same have become infructuous. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
............
|
