|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 667 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1513
... ...
... ... ..... to act in a quasijudicial capacity, it is imperative to give appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard before deciding the appeal. The aim of the rule of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and denial of principles of audi alteram partem results into such miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Learned CIT(A) should have afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in order to impart substantial justice to the assessee, we reverse the orders of ld CIT(A) and restore the appeals to the file of the AO to decide Ground Nos.1 to 3 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 8. As we have restored Ground Nos.1 to 3, rest of the issues taken in Ground Nos.4 to 8 are also restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh. AO is directed to frame denovo assessment as per law 9. In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1512
... ...
... ... ..... received on 01.01.2006, then in all the years, no penalty is leviable for default upto 01.01.2006 and is leviable for the default thereafter. 42. However, in cases where the Annual Information Reports have been filed by the specified persons beyond the abovesaid period of limitation, the specified person would be held to be in default, making it eligible to levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act. The DIT (CIB) is directed to recompute the said levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act in line with our directions. However, reasonable opportunity of hearing should be afforded in this regard and the specified person shall furnish complete information before his DIT (CIB), with regard to its several claims, in order to finally determine the period of default and the quantum of penalty leviable under section 271FA of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed as stated above. 43. In the result, appeals of the assessees are partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1511
... ...
... ... ..... ircumstances the said action was at that point of time not infringed the settled law then it can be reasonably held that the assessee was prevented by a “reasonable cause” under those circumstances not to act as prescribed or determined by a case law subsequently. Although ignorance of law is not an excuse but side by side it is also not expected that every tax payer should be aware about the latest development of tax law; which are otherwise fast changing. We, therefore, deem it justifiable to hold that in a situation when an assessee was not aware about the latest position of law during the assessment years under consideration; hence, he was prevented by a reasonable cause not to deduct the TDS, therefore, as far as the question of levy of penalty is concerned, entitled for the relief. Assigning this reason, we hereby direct to delete the penalty. Grounds allowed for all the years under appeal. 6. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1509
... ...
... ... ..... rded to be the income. It is not the case of the revenue that the provisions of Sec. 68 are applicable to this sum of ₹ 4.99 crores. This is a settled law in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT, 57 ITR 532 in which it was held that when a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision. Where, however, receipt is of the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act lies upon the Assessee. Since there is no evidence on record that the amount has been received by the Assessee towards rendering of services, therefore, in our opinion, the Assessee is bound to succeed. We, accordingly, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition of ₹ 4.99 crores. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. 4. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1506
... ...
... ... ..... pital gains from the sale of bonus shares the said gains have been set off against brought forwarded loss. The facts on record also show that even after this set off there were substantial loss which were carried forward. These facts on record show that the mistake of the assessee was a bona fide mistake and there is no loss to the revenue whatsoever. Considering all these facts in totality, in our view no penalty is leviable. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty of ₹ 2,48,705/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom communication 327 ITR 510 and the assessee has relied upon two decision of the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. Since we have deleted the penalty on the peculiar facts of the case, there was no necessity to discuss these judicial decisions. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1505
Harmonious construction of section 43B and section 40A(7)(b) of the Act - Deduction of contribution to gratuity fund - deduction on the basis of payment / deposit in cash - approved gratuity fund or not - HELD THAT:- Kerala High Court has held that, section 40A(7), clause (b) sub-clause (i) thereof is a special provision to claim for deduction based on a provision made for payment towards an approved gratuity fund. Referring to various decisions of Supreme Court stated that there is no clear inconsistency between the two provisions. Section 40A(7) is in negative terms and section 43B is in positive terms, the effect of both provisions is that to claim deduction in respect of payment to a gratuity fund there must be actual payment and that deduction cannot be allowed on the basis of any provision. The only exception to the above rule is with regard to the provision for payment to an approved gratuity fund. It cannot be interpreted that the later provision in section 43B by introducing the non-obstante clause would abrogate the special provision with regard to the provision made for payment to an approved gratuity fund contained in section 40A(7)(b)(i). This is all the more so since no patent conflict or inconsistency can be spelt out. Both the provisions can co-exist. A harmonious construction of the aforesaid two provisions would clearly indicate that the Legislature never intended to take away the benefit conferred under clause (b) of section 40A(7) by the provisions of section 43B(b) of the Act.
The A.O. is directed to allow the assessee's claim of provision for gratuity after verifying whether the provision made by the assessee is to an approved gratuity fund or not. In case the said gratuity is approved then the provision is to be allowed. In the event the said gratuity fund is not an approved one, then as per the proviso’s to section 43B of the Act, deduction is to be allowed to the extent of actual payments towards gratuity up to the due date for filing the return of income u/s.139(1)
Decision in the case COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS COMMON WEALTH TRUST (P.) LTD [2004 (4) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT] followed.
Deduction u/s 80IA - calculating the deduction - the carry forward of losses of other eligible units to be considered or not - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of computation of gross total income, the losses of other units are to be taken into account. However for the purposes of calculating the deduction of an eligible unit / undertaking u/s.80-IA of the Act, the loss sustained in another unit / undertaking cannot be taken into account and it is only the profit that shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income of that unit.
Following the decision in the case of Synco Industries Ltd [2008 (3) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT], held that, the assessee has to compute the claim of deduction of each eligible unit / undertaking, as if it is the only source of income from such eligible undertaking and without any setting off of unadjusted brought forward losses of other eligible undertakings. We find from the record that the computation of the eligible deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act by the assessee is in accordance with the procedure laid down and is therefore entitled to claim and be allowed deduction u/s.80-IA.
Applicability of provisions of section 115JB of the Act - HELD THAT:- the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee which is an electric company in the business of generation of power. In this view of the matter, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the non-applicability of the provisions of section 115JB of the Act is allowed.
Decision in the case SYNDICATE BANK VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, UDUPI [2015 (4) TMI 727 - ITAT BANGALORE] followed.
In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1503
... ...
... ... ..... xing the entire profit of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- and not 93.75% thereof in the hands of M/s Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. on substantive basis for the reasons given earlier in this order. 15. Miscellaneous Application bearing MA No.06/Rjt/2012 filed by the Revenue in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the view taken by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. The order of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel has thus merged in the order of the Hon’ble High Court. It is therefore not amenable to rectification u/s 254(2). 16. In view of the foregoing, Miscellaneous Application No.06/Rjt/2012 filed by the Revenue in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel is dismissed while the Miscellaneous Application No.11/Rjt/2012 in the case of M/s Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. is allowed to the extent indicated earlier in this Order. Order pronounced on 04.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1502
... ...
... ... ..... t and based on the aforesaid quantification, the Assessee has also deposited the FBT into Government Treasury and not in an Escrow account with the scheduled bank. We further find that the Assessing Officer has considered the Assessee to be covered in the dcategory-1 of the Assessees who were covered by the provisions of FBT in terms of the decision of Hon.Gujarat High Court (supra). Before us, the learned A.R. could not controvert the findings of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of the Assessee is dismissed.” 6. Respectfully following the coordinate “C” Bench decision in case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Ltd., we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A), accordingly we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee. 7. In results, assessee’s appeals are dismissed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 11.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1500
... ...
... ... ..... d application praying for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit. In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that Mr Madan Mohan Swain, Chairman of the Trust, who looks after the legal and income tax matters of the trust was seriously ill and medically unfit. Therefore, he could not file this cross objection and, therefore, there was delay of 60 days. In view of this, prayer was made to condone the delay. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that assessee did not present at the time of hearing of this cross objection and appeal filed by the revenue. We also find that cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of the order of ld CIT(A). We have already dismissed the appeal of the revenue and, therefore, there is no necessity to condone the delay. Therefore, cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by revenue and cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 4th October, 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1499
... ...
... ... ..... rection to dispose off the ground No.5 raised in the appeal before him after examination and verification of the claim of the assessee in respect of adoption of the correct figure of income as returned in the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Charging of Interest under section 234B of the Act ₹ 2,20,341. 9.1 In the Ground at S.No.7, the assessee challenges the action of the Assessing Officer in charging him interest under section 234B of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. In this view of the matter, we uphold the Assessing Officer's action in charging the aforesaid interest in the case on hand. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1497
... ...
... ... ..... 163/183 Taxman 53 (Punj. & Har.), where the transactions are between two sister concerns, both within the family, and the fund transfers were for the purposes of business, with the transactions accounted for in the books, the requirement of reasonable cause is to be considered as satisfied in such circumstances. On the same footing is the decision in the case of CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog 2008 302 ITR 201/170 Taxman 502 (Raj.) and CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co. 2008 303 ITR 99 (Mad). 4. In view of the foregoing, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the number and volume of transactions, in our view the assessee has been able to exclude its case on the ground of reasonable cause, so that the penalty in the instant case is saved by section 273B of the Act, as well as on the ground of applicability of the un-amended provision of s. 269T of the Act. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1496
... ...
... ... ..... A) and bringing to tax the 3% grant allotted to the assessee towards administrative expenses . Facts and circumstances of the case relating to this issue, are identical to the corresponding ground raised in assessee's appeal for assessment year 2008-09. Hence, for the detailed reasons discussed in the context of the assessee's appeal for that year in relation to this issue in para 22, hereinabove, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify and decide the issue afresh keeping in view our directions as contained in paragraph 22 of this order hereinabove, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee's grounds on this issue are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 29. In the result, assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10, being ITA No.139/Hyd/2013 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1495
... ...
... ... ..... as been considered. We have already held that law with regard to payments made under certain categories and their disallowability was on statute when the return was filed by the assessee. Disregarding the unambiguous and un-debatable provisions of law, assessee had claimed the payments that were included in the prohibited category. Tribunal had given partial relief to the assessee, but that does not mean that assessee cannot be visited by penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. Therefore, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee. ITA No.4501-02/Mum/2012. AYs.-2002-03, 2003-04. 7. As the facts and circumstances of the appeals filed for the AYs.2002-03 and 2003-04 are similar to the facts for the AY.1998-99, therefore, following the order for that year, we reject the appeals filed by the assessee for both the year. As a result, appeals (ITA Nos.4500-02/Mum/2012) filed by the assessee stand dismissed for all the three AY.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1494
... ...
... ... ..... see and directed the AO to delete the addition made at ₹ 88.39 lacs. The order passed by the CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, maintained the order of CIT(A). Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is before this Court. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and after going through the orders of the AO CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we arc of the view that the AO has committed error in treating the amount waived by the bank to be the amount earned by the assessee. The principal amount of loan being never claimed by the assessee as its expenditure, its waiver will not amount to income of the assessee and as such, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Tribunal affirming the order of CIT(A). 7. No question of law arises in the matter. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1493
... ...
... ... ..... Registered Valuer’s report a copy of which is at page 67 of the paper book, the Registered Valuer has also not cited any comparable cases to justify the rate determined by him. In the report, he only mentioned vaguely that on local enquiry, he found that the market rate as on 1.4.1981 in the locality was ranging between ₹ 900 and ₹ 1100 per sq. yard. In such view of the matter, we do not find any apparent error on the part of the CIT(A) in adopting the Fair Market Value of the land at ₹ 900 per sq. yard as on 1.4.1981. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the grounds of the assessee as well in its cross objection, and consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A), even in the context of the assessee’s cross objections, is upheld. 14. In the result, assessee’s cross-objection is dismissed. 15. To sum up, Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 25.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1492
... ...
... ... ..... ny provides the benefit or amenity to its employees through intermediary institution, it is not necessary to that such intermediary institute should operate solely for the similar company. What is important is that the value of benefit has been conferred to the employees irrespective of the manner in which or through whom they obtain the benefit as long as the source of the benefit is the employer of the benefit get taxed in the hands of the employees. We agree with the observations of the CIT(Appeals). 6. The CIT(Appeals) has remitted the file back to Assessing Officer with a direction to proportionately disallow the expenditure if shares have been allotted to the employees of other group companies. However, the disallowance so made shall be allowed in the hands of the respective group companies. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of CIT(Appeals). The findings of the CIT(Appeals) are confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1491
... ...
... ... ..... rence is called for in CIT(A)'s order. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the entire material available on record. In our considered view no change has been brought by the Finance Act, 2001 as alleged by Assessing Officer vis a vis the scope of the ALV as it existed prior to amendment. The scope of ALV i.e. the annual letting value before and after amendment does not include value of other amenities provided as per separate agreements of the tenants and the owner for providing extra facilities like watchman, sweeper, mali etc. The assessee as in past has prepared P&L a/c by reflecting separate charges received for these facilities and actual expenditure incurred for tenants has been duly accounted for. The remainder has been returned in accordance with law. As we have held that there is no change by way of amendment in the scope of ALV, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is upheld. 6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1490
... ...
... ... ..... Ramsukh Properties (supra), Rahul Construction Co. (supra), Satish Bohra & Associates (supra). Accordingly, we hold that assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction u/s.80IB (10) in respect of all buildings except building H-4. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.” 9. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered in the assessee’s own case on an identical issue, we hereby hold that assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act in relation to the profits derived from its housing project ‘Harsh Paradise’ are eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act in the manner as adjudicated by the Tribunal in the assessment year 2008-09 (supra). Thus, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB (10) of the Act. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1489
... ...
... ... ..... as convinced about the reasonable cause, he had to follow the procedure contemplated under rule 46A(3) by providing sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witnesses, as the case may be. .” We are aware that the powers of the FAA are co-terminus with that of the AO and he can admit additional evidences at any stage of hearing before him,but principles of natural justice demand that decision should not be taken without hearing the other party.In the case under consideration FAA had relied upon the documents that were not made available to the AO.Therefore,in the interest of justice, we remand back the matter to the file of the FAA.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the AO before passing fresh order. Effective ground of appeal filed by the AO is allowed in part. As a result, appeal filed by the AO stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th October,2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1488
... ...
... ... ..... tsourcing Services P Ltd v ITO, Delhi Tribunal ITA No.1204/Del/11 dtd. 27.5.2011. - ITO v Accuram India P Ltd 2010 126 lTD 69 (Chennai Tribunal) 32. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by him that alternatively the issue should be sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration for affording due opportunity to the assessee. 33. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, the order of the CIT(A) does not give any basis for coming to the conclusion that the assessee was in the business of manpower deployment. It is not understandable as to how such conclusion can be arrived at on the basis of perusal of P&L account and the composition of personnel cost found in the P&L account. The conclusions are without any basis and in our view cannot be sustained. We therefore allow ground No.5 raised by the assessee. 34. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2013.
........
|
