|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 667 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1543
... ...
... ... ..... essment proceedings under this Act, if satisfied can proceed to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c). So, there is clear distinction between the two provisions because u/s 271AAA, it is the A.O. who could invoke such provision whereas under the provisions of Section 271(1), any of the three authorities including Commissioner (Appeals) could invoke the said provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the action of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be justified so far as provisions relatable to Section 271AAA is concerned. 3.3 As such, penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) and converted it by Ld. CIT(A) into section 271AAA even on reduced amount cannot be held to be proper or legally justified at all. As such, while accepting the appeal of the assessee, we vacate the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) and to the extent reduced by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 271AAA of the Act. 4. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. Order pronounced in Open Court on 11th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1542
... ...
... ... ..... g Term Capital Gain and that the Assessee was entitled to the consequential benefits of Sec.54F of the Act. The Department however held it to be income chargeable to tax under the head “salaries” and consequently denied benefit of Sec.54F of the Act. In our view, in the given facts and circumstances, the bona fides of the Assessee cannot be doubted. The Assessee should be entitled to the benefit of Expln.1 to Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act in as much as facts material to the computation of the total income under the Act have been disclosed by the Assessee. The Assessee has offered an explanation which is bona fide. The Assessee has disclosed all the facts relating to the claim for deduction made by him and material to the computation of his total income. 50. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the Revenue. 51. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1541
... ...
... ... ..... it the business as such, like wise depreciation would also have some element of commonality of the HO and R&D unit and eligible unit at Baddi. We are also aware, consistently the coordinate Benches have been allowing the claim of the assessee, but to iron out the doubts in the mind of the AO, it is necessary that the AO must factually get satisfied that the assessee has allocated expenses wherever necessary and not allocated wherever it was not found to be not necessary. Both the parties have no objection if the matter is restored to the AO for verification. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the AO, who shall examine the allocability of expenses of R&D and depreciation if at all, relying on the books as maintained by the various units. 17. Ground no. 2 is therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is treated as allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1540
... ...
... ... ..... ion of providing personal guarantee by the Director or collateral securities of personal property of Director and a Board’s resolution is passed for making the Director agreeing to provide his personal guarantee etc. and in consideration of it the Director who is also shareholder of company is allowed to withdraw fund form the company, to that extent, the advance given by the Company cannot be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e), in terms of judicial pronouncements discussed above.” 29. Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench, we do not find any merit for the additions made in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 under Section 2(24)(iv) and 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 30. In the result, the appeals of assessee for assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 are dismissed, whereas appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1538
... ...
... ... ..... , held that the Project Completion Certificate under the said Section is not required with regard to the benefit given under the said section after completion of the project. The benefit of the said section can be given on completion of year-to year basis and this has been clarified in the said circular in the manner as follows “(a) The deduction can be claimed on a year-to-year basis where the assessee is showing profit from partial completion of the project in every year. (b) In case it is late and it is found that the condition of completing the project within the specified time-limit of 4 years as stated in S.80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier years should be withdrawn.” In view of the above clarification and having noted the factual position, the learned Tribunal held that Completion Certificate is not required. Therefore, we do not find any element of law in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1535
... ...
... ... ..... erpreted by the Hon’ble ITAT Special Bench in the case of Lalsons Enterprises. The Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT has held that in case the computation of profit under sub-section 3 is negative then the application of proviso would have to be independent and that the deduction under section 8OHHC would be the amount worked out under proviso to sub-section 3 of section 8OHHC. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed”. 91. We do not find any reason to deviate from the decision taken by the CTI(A), which we sustain, we, therefore, reject the ground taken by the department. 92. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is partly allowed. To sum up Assessee’s appeal in ITA 5421/Mum/2005 is partly allowed Revenue’s appeal in ITA 5561/Mum/2005 is partly allowed. Assessee’s appeal in ITA 5422/Mum/2005 is partly allowed. Revenue’s appeal in ITA 5530/Mum/2005 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1534
... ...
... ... ..... ion 226 (3) of the said Act does not suggest that the account like the Cash Credit or the Overdraft is capable of being attached as the bank does not become a debtor. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order of attachment passed by the authorities is clearly beyond the powers conferred under Section 226 (3) of the said Act and is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 before whom the appeal is pending is directed to take utmost care to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment and preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since the petitioner has shown his eagerness to pay the amount so assessed by the Assessing Authority in instalments, it would be open to the petitioner to pay the same in instalments, which shall be without prejudice and subject to the result of the said appeal. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1533
... ...
... ... ..... ing that an amount of ₹ 18.87 lakhs has been actually spent in the succeeding year and therefore the provision for warranty liability at ₹ 12,70,996/- provided by the assessee in the books is justified. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any material to deviate from the findings given by the Ld.CIT(A). Since the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue has given a finding that the amount of ₹ 12,70,996/- provided on account of warranty liability during the year was reversed back in next year and actual expenses were shown at ₹ 18.87 lakhs, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition. Accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1531
... ...
... ... ..... it cannot be treated as a charitable institution as provided in section 2(15) of the Act. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is confirmed.' 5. In this case, admittedly, the predominant object of the trust is to promote the Christian religious faith and no educational activity within the meaning of section 2(15) was carried out. The matter would have been entirely different had the assessee claimed recognition u/s 12AA of the Act as a religious trust. However, the assessee has not applied for registration u/s 12AA of the Act as religious trust. Hence, this Tribunal is not in a position to endorse the activity of the assessee as educational trust. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the order of the Administrative Commissioner is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1530
... ...
... ... ..... ion in Star Flexi Pack Industries therefore applies with equal measure to the appellant's case. Following the decision in Star Fexi Pack Industries, it is held that the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) are not attracted in the case of the appellant, as the essential condition of the appellant being a registered share holder of Ghodawat Industries P. Ltd. is not 2(22)(e) was deleted by the CIT(A) following the decision of the 4 satisfied. Thus, addition on account of deemed dividend u/s Special Bench of ITAT in CIT vs Bhaumik Color 313 ITR(AT)146 Mum. Now Hon.Bombay High Court has also approved this decision in CIT vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom). In view of above, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of Act and the same is upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Pronounced in the open Court on the day of 30th October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1526
... ...
... ... ..... k, Mr. Piyush Jain, Ms. Ashly Cherian, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1525
... ...
... ... ..... g the addition in respect of cash found and seized, the CIT(A) had also recorded categorical finding to the effect that cash disclosed in the cash book maintained by assessee and his family members were higher than cash found during course of search. Nothing was brought on record by Department to controvert the findings recorded by CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A). 11. We also found that tax effect in the appeal filed by the Department in I.T.A.No. 455/Ind/2013 is less than monetary limit fixed by C.B.D.T. Circular No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 for filing appeal by the Department. Since the tax effect was less than ₹ 3 lakhs even as per C.B.D.T. Circular dated 9.2.2011, the Department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 12. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 28 October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1524
... ...
... ... ..... ns a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. Therefore, the argument that prior to 1.4.2003 when there was no express provision for recession of the approval granted once, the Assessing Authority was vested with the power to deny the exemption without seeking for recession of the approval granted, is without any substance. 10. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Point No. 2 11. In view of the finding recorded on substantial question No.1, we decline to answer the second substantial question of law and leave it open to be decided in appropriate case. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1523
... ...
... ... ..... the shares as on 31.03.2008, only shares in India Cement Ltd. would continue to be classified as an investment, and carried over at cost. The balance would be valued at cost or market value, whichever is less, reckoned individually and not in aggregate, as done by the assessee (refer PB pg.44). The business income is to be computed accordingly. Further, the same value (of the closing stock) is to be taken into account in computing the income for the subsequent years, i.e., as and when actually the said shares are actually sold; (b) the assessee shall be entitled to claim the benefit of Security Transaction Tax (STT) to the extent it relates to business income, though the onus to establish its claim would only be on the assessee; and (c) the D-mat charges, to the extent the same relate to shares confirmed as capital asset (long term or short term) would have to be adjusted against the cost thereof. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1522
... ...
... ... ..... ases together and; a) restrict the addition u/s 68 to only the peak unexplained credit in each case after elimination circular transaction. b) To eliminate taxation of the same amount multiple times, due to the chain transactions which resulted due to layering indulged by the assessee. c) Considere the material on record and the precedence available on the issue and determine the percentage of commission, which the assessees would have earned and bring the same to tax. 24. Before parting we make it clear that the burden of proof lay on the assessee. It is for the assessee to demonstrate the chain of transaction, the layering indulged by him, the calculation of peak unexplained credit etc. and to prove each credit in the books of each assessee. In the result all these appeals are set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 25. In the result all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1519
... ...
... ... ..... through the schedules of the capital account and balance sheet furnished by the appellant.” The CIT(A), therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition made. In our considered view, the CIT(A) after appreciating the facts and information on record, came to the conclusion that the AO made the addition on account of opening balance of capital account on a wrong premise, hence, directed the AO to delete the same. We were also informed that assessments in Block cases were completed by same AO and all the opening and closing balances were accepted in earlier and later years and made addition in only in this year without any basis. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby confirmed, dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 11th day of October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1518
... ...
... ... ..... nance was liable to be taxed in India. The high Court was not concerned with taxability of interest income as per the treaty. 5.1 In view of the fore-going discussion, we hold that tax payable @ 12.5% under Article 11(2) of FTAA is inclusive of surcharge and education cess. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee.” 5. We further note that an identical issue has also been considered and decided by the Kolkata Benches of this Tribunal in case of DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation) 52 SOT 447. The Tribunal in case of Sunil V. Motiani Vs ITO has considered the decision of Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal in case of DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (supra). Accordingly, following the orders of this Tribunal we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 23rd day of October 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1517
... ...
... ... ..... l was filed. This finding of the Tribunal is consistent with law and does not give any rise to substantial question of law. 4. As regards ground (C), the Tribunal has noted that before the Tribunal, the Assessee had filed a copy of the return of the Proprietor of M/s. Peninsula Minerals & Overseas and of M/s. Natasha Minerals. The Return of income indicated that the contractor had carried out the work for the Assessee. The Department had accepted the return and taxes have been paid on the income of the contractor. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that Section 68 was not applicable since the two creditors were not bogus sundry creditors, but were actual contractors to whom payments have been made by the Assessee. This again is a finding of fact which is also borne out from the material on record before the Tribunal. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 5. For these reasons, we decline to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1516
... ...
... ... ..... the material on record. The payments made in the F.Y. 05-06 as evident from the assessment order of the assessee, which was received back in the year under consideration. The ld. A.O. held that this was the unaccounted income but it cannot be taxed on the basis of receipts. If any payment is made by the assessee from undisclosed income, was relevant to A.Y. 06-07. Therefore, addition in year under consideration cannot be made. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). However, it is clarified that A.O. is free to take action in A.Y. 06-07 on the basis of payment made for purchase of alleged unaccounted transaction for purchase of land. The A.O. disallowed the 80IB deduction in case of firm, on same income, there is no material on record to show that the assessee has challenged the disallowance made u/s. 80IB in case of firm, namely, M/s. Shri Hari Associates. 14. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 11.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1514
... ...
... ... ..... nt agreement and reduction of road acquisition area from this gross plot area for calculation of minimum 1 acre was not justified. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction in respect of housing project “Prem Aangan” which needs no interference from our side. With the above reasoning we uphold the same.” 3.3 Since the Ld.CIT(A) has followed his order for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been upheld by the Tribunal, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding assessment year and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself, i.e. on 22nd day of October, 2013.
........
|
