|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1647 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- As the evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer clearly indicates in the first place that the plan approval is not in the name of the assessee and even otherwise, the assessee has not completed the entire housing project comprising of 880 units, which are required to be built by the assessee as per the approved plan, and that too within the time prescribed. Being so, the primary condition laid down in S.80IB(10) is not at all fulfilled by the assessee, by furnishing the prescribed form in 10CCB of the Act, to show that the assessee has complied with the statutory requirements prescribed in S.80IB of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, the Assessing Officer was correct and justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under S.80IB of the Act, for the years under appeal. - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of finance charges - Held that:- As per the provisions of S.40(ba) of the Income-tax Act, any payment by a joint venture to member-constituent under the head interest, salary, bonus, commission and remuneration is not allowable as deduction. Being so, the learned Authorised Representative is not able to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with regard to applicability of provisions of S.40(ba) of the Act to the facts of the present case. Since the assessee itself has not availed the loan, and it is the constituent of the assessee’s JV which availed the loan, assessee is not eligible for deduction in respect of interest on such loan, even if it was paid by the assessee directly to the AP Statee Finance Corporation. We therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A), and reject the grounds of the assessee on this issue.
Disallowance of direct and indirect expenditure - Held that:- Considering the quantum and nature of expenditure claimed, which is not verifiable, we agree with the CIT(A) that certain element of inflation and personal nature of expenditure cannot be ruled out. Consequently, disallowance of a portion of the expenditure claimed by the assessee is called for. The approach of the CIT(A) in estimating such disallowable expenditure at 10% of the cash component of direct and indirect expenditure is quite reasonable. We find no infirmity in his action in sustaining disallowance to that extent. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect, and reject the grounds of the assessee on this issue in the appeals for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Suppression of receipts on sale of flats situated in Janapriya Utopia - Held that:- It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting. That being so, irrespective of actual receipt or otherwise of an amount, income has to be recognised in the year in relation to which it has arisen or accrued. In the facts of the present case, since the registration of the sale deed has taken place in February, 2008, which falls in the assessment year 2008-09, even though certain amount of consideration is due from the purchaser of the flats as on the date of registration, income in respect of sale of the flats has to be recognized in the year under appeal only, and not in any other year. Any income is assessable only in the relevant year in which it is assessable, as per the method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee. Merely because it was disclosed in a subsequent year, it cannot be said that there is no justification for the addition in the year under appeal. In this view of the matter, we uphold the orders of the Revenue authorities on this issue and reject the grounds of the assessee in this appeal.
Addition u/s 69C - Held that:- We agree with the CIT(A) that before fastening any liability on the assessee, it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to establish some nexus to the contents of the document relied upon and unless the so called unofficial payments or receipts are linked to any land or construction of the project under taken by the assessee, it is difficult to assume that the entries in those documents indicate unexplained expenditure or investment, liable for addition under S.69C of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the CIT(A) for deleting this addition in para 29.1 of the impugned order.
Addition u/s 80IA - Held that:- In the case of an assessee engaged in the business of developing industrial park and letting out the same, income from letting out is assessable under the head ’business’. Hence, the income derived from such letting out should be considered as income from business income only, and not otherwise, as envisaged in S.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of the assessee for relief under S.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act, and allow the same, if the assessee is otherwise eligible for the same. He shall of course, re-decide this issue in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of the assessee on this aspect are treated as allowed.
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- While the Assessing Officer has disallowed only part of the finance charges claimed, in terms of S.14A of the Act, as attributable to the income claimed by the assessee as exempt, the CIT(A) observing that the assessee has diverted its entire borrowed funds to the group entities of the assessee, and not utilised the same in its own business activities. This finding of the CIT(A) could not be controverted by the assessee before us, by bringing on record any cogent evidence on record. In the circumstances, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the same, rejecting the grounds of the assessee on this issue.
Addition towards loan processing charges - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the loan of ₹ 5 crores taken by the assessee from APSFC has been transferred to its joint venture partner, Janapriya Engineers Syndicate JV. Since the loan amount has not been utilized by the assessee for its own business purpose, it cannot be said that the expenditure incurred by way of processing charges for securing such a loan, is an expenditure incurred for the pupose of the business of the assessee. That being so, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is in order and the CIT(A) in our opinion, was justified in sustaining the same.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1646 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deposits in the saving bank account - treated as "Trading Receipts" - Held that:- ITAT have rightly held that the entire amount of ₹ 35,33,414/- cannot be added in the income of the assessee as undisclosed income.
Considering the evidence on record and the total turnover of the assessee which came to be estimated at ₹ 36 lacs, the CIT(A) has worked out the net income of the assessee under Section 44AF to ₹ 1.80 lacs. We have no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) as well as judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT. No questions of law much less any substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1645 - ITAT PUNE
Opportunity of bearing heard - essence of principles of natural justice - Held that:- CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee exparte by following ratio of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] which is not justified. According to us, due opportunity of hearing is essence of principles of natural justice which should be given by all administrative, quasi-judicial bodies and judicial bodies. In view of above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to him with a direction to decide the appeal on facts and law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since, we are restoring the matter to the CIT(A) on preliminary issue, so we are refraining from commenting on the merits of the issue at hand.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1644 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194C - Addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment incurred out of transport charges - assessee huf - Held that:- The assessee in the instant case, a HUF and according to clause (k) to section 194C(1) introduced by Finance Act 2007 is applicable to the individual and HUF which states that there is a requirement of deduction of TDS w.e.f 01.06.2007. The specific amendment bringing HUF within the provision of section 194C (1) is made only from the said date and this implies that HUF are excluded from section 194C before 01.06.2007 and the same is not applicable in the case of the assessee during the year under consideration i.e. 2005-06.
Secondly, the ITAT in the case of Nasib Singh (2012 (4) TMI 396 - ITAT CUTTACK) has held that where an assessee who is in the business of transportation engages his own trucks and the trucks owned by the others, provisions of section 194C (1) as to the requirement of deducting tax at source would not apply in respect of payments made to the truck owners whose trucks the assessee has engaged. The said proposition is supported by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation (2009 (1) TMI 337 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ). In the instant case also the facts are similar to that of the said decision of the ITAT in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation. In view of the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has correctly relied on the decisions while deleting the disallowance/addition made by the AO, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the same is upheld. - Decided against revenue
-
2013 (11) TMI 1643 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Reopening of assessment - exemption u/s 54 - condonation of delay - Held that:- The assessee had a bona-fide belief that reopening of assessment was correct and the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 54(1) of the Act. Being so, in our opinion, the bona-fide belief is a reason for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). If the assessee is otherwise entitled for exemption u/s. 54(1), we direct the CIT(A) to examine the issue afresh and decide the issue in accordance with law. As the appellate authorities are empowered to entertain the claim during the appeal proceedings which was not put before the AO on earlier occasion by the revised return. The judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ) does not prevent the CIT(A) in entertaining this issue. Accordingly, we remit the issue to the CIT(A) for deciding it afresh.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1642 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction on account of amortization of depreciation claimed on investment in Govt - Held that:- Merely because the Securities are kept under the head till the maturity, the said Security cannot be treated as a purely investment. Law is well settled that the Securities held by the Bank are in the nature of Stock-in-Trade. Nomenclature cannot be decisive for the assessee Bank. We, therefore, hold that the loss on the sale of the Securities is revenue in nature and same is allowable.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1641 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 080IB - clause (d),inserted to the section 801B(10) with effect from 01/04/2005, was prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied to the period prior to 01/04/2005,that the restriction imposed by the introduction of sub-section(d) to section 801B(10) w. e, f. 1.4.2005 were therefore not applicable to the assessee as his project having commercial area was approved as well as commenced prior to the said date, that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) would be available to the housing projects irrespective of the fact that project was approved as a ‘housing project’ or approved as ‘residential with shopline’,that as long as the housing project was as per the Development Control Regulations of the local authority the assessee could not be denied the deduction u/s. 80 IB(l0)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1640 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition on account of interest received from the Head Office - Held that:- The interest received by the Indian branch of a foreign bank from its Head Office, therefore, did not give rise to any income which was taxable in India since one could not make profit out of himself.
Claim for deduction of bad debts - Held that:- This issue now stands squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ) wherein it has been held that as per the amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii), it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable and it is enough to claim deduction under the said provision if the relevant debt is written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in its books of account. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra), we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of bad debts written off
Disallowance of transaction charges on Nostro account u/s 40(a)(i) - Held that:- Transaction charges paid on Nostro Account were in the nature of bank charges for maintaining the accounts with banks outside India. These charges were recovered directly by way of debits to the concerned accounts of the assessee with these banks and the same represented business income of those banks which accrued/arisen outside India. As held by the Tribunal, no tax therefore was required to be deducted at source from the transaction charges paid on Nostro account and the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act was not sustainable. Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal on the similar issue involved in earlier years, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of transaction charges u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act
Traveling expenses incurred by the Head Office on traveling of its own staff and directly in connection with India branch are allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act and section 44-C has no application to such expenses
-
2013 (11) TMI 1639 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance to be made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- For invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act, AO should indicate ‘cogent reasons’ for holding the view that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. We find that AO had not mentioned as how and why he was not satisfied with the claim made by the asseessee. While confirming the order of the AO,FAA has also ignored this vital factor. In taxation matters, recording of satisfaction is a pre-condition for invoking certain provisions e.g. section 132 or section 148. AO has not recorded any reason as to why he was not satisfied with the explanation filed by the assessee.
Mere mentioning that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee, is not sufficient. He has to mention the reason for rejecting the claim of the assessee in no uncertain terms. Therefore, we are not able to endorse the views of the AO that were confirmed by the FAA. In our opinion, considering the facts of the case under consideration, further verification is required. Therefore in the interest of justice we are remitting back the matter to the file of the AO. He is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Effective ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in its favour, in part.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1638 - ITAT MUMBAI
Working out capital gain on sale of shares of BSE - whether WDV of BSE Card in the books of accounts of assessee or original cost of acquisition of BSE Card is to be considered towards cost of shares allotted to the members? - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee availed depreciation on the BSE card till BSE was corporatized and accordingly WDV of the BSE card is the cost of membership in the books of accounts of the assessee has to be treated as cost of acquisition towards 10000 shares; were allotted to assessee at the rate of ₹ 1 per share. Hence, we are of the considered view that LTCG in respect of shares has to be considered after assigning the WDV of BSE card to the cost of 10000 shares allotted to the assessee. It is ascertained that the assessee in the assessment year under consideration has sold 9123 shares. Therefore, proportionate cost of WDV of BSE card has to be assigned to the said shares while computing the LTCG. We are of the considered view that the AO has rightly computed LTCG by considering the cost of shares taking into account the WDV of the stock exchange card.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1637 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance made u/s. 14A applying Rule 8D - Disallowance u/s.14A computed by the A.O. in relation to the stock-in-trade deleted as the disallowance of interest in relation to the dividend received from trading shares cannot be made.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1636 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... A.Y. 2004-05 nor there is any discussion except reference to the preceding years. We, therefore, do not find any reason not to agree with the CIT(A). We, accordingly, confirm the order of the CIT(A). 8. The Revenue has also taken a contention that no opportunity was given to the Department even if on the similar reasons the disallowance made in the A.Y. 2001-02 has been confirmed by the CIT(A). In our opinion, such plea of the Department is not tenable. We have already held that the Assessing Officer has not independently pointed out any defects in A.Y. 2004-05 and the Assessing Officer cannot reject the books ITA No. 149/PN/2008, Honeywell Automation India Ltd., Pune of account merely relying on the reasons given for rejections of books of account in preceding years as each accounting year is independent one. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 13-11-2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1635 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deduction Sec.54 - Held that:- The said apartments for a period of more than thirty-six months and the sale proceed out of its sale consideration were in the nature of LTCG and were invested for purchasing the new house property for residential purpose within a period of one year from the date of sale of property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue to the file of AO.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1634 - ITAT MUMBAI
MAT - Calculation of book profit u/s.115JB - charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C - Held that:- We remit back the matter to the file of the FAA for reconsideraion.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1633 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- The objective satisfaction of the AO as to the correctness of the assessee's claim was not recorded in the instant case. However, even if Rule 8D cannot be applied, the AO is obliged to ascertain the expenditure which had been incurred to earn the tax-free income. He must adopt a reasonable basis consistent with the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant's dividend income during the year is ₹ 3,33,320/- and appellant estimated an expenditure of 2% of dividend income as related to exempt income and disallowed an amount of ₹ 6,666/- in the computation of total income. The expenditure estimated by the appellant appears to be highly inadequate. Appellant has to incur various direct and indirect expenses in as much as the efforts of the employees go in tracking the mutual fund and other investments, purchase and sale of mutual funds and other assets, deposit of the dividend warrants, portfolio management etc. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial precedents discussed in preceding paras, a sum of ₹ 50,000/- is considered as reasonable expenditure to earn the exempt income. Accordingly, the disallowance is restricted to ₹ 50,000/-. This ground is partly allowed
-
2013 (11) TMI 1632 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed a clear finding that the assessee possessed sufficient interest-free funds of its own which were generated in the course of the relevant year apart from substantial share holders fund, relying on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision presumption stands established that the investment in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest-free funds and therefore no part of interest on borrowing can be disallowed on the basis that investments were made out of interest bearing funds. Therefore there is no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) regarding this issue also and we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) and therefore this ground of the Revenue also fails. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A). The same is hereby sustained. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant-Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1630 - ITAT DELHI
Assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- As the facts emerge the assessing officer while framing the assessment u/s 153C and making these additions has not relied on any incriminating material. We find merit in the argument of ld. Counsel that the very same additions are made u/s 143(3) which is subject matter of appeal pending before ITAT. Therefore, the same additions cannot be made u/s 153C.
No addition can be made without any incriminating evidence in an assessment u/s 153C.The issues which are pending before ITAT and are subject matter of its jurisdiction cannot be added u/s 153C assessment in view of proviso to Sec. 153A. - Thus addition deleted
-
2013 (11) TMI 1628 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- We quash the Order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1626 - ITAT MUMBAI
Grants of stay - Held that:- Quantum appeal could not be heard in this case for the reasons not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for further extension of time. Accordingly, we allow the Stay Application filed by the assessee and grant stay for a period of six months or the completion of hearing of the appeal whichever is earlier.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1621 - SC ORDER
Deduction u/s 80HHC - Held that:- Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) states that the issues raised in these petitions for our consideration are identical with the issues raised and considered by this Court in the case of Madhur Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II [2013 (7) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held where the export turnover of an assessee exceeds ₹ 10 crores, he does not get the benefit of addition of ninety per cent of export incentive under clause (iiid) of Section 28 to his export profits, but he gets a higher figure of profits of the business, which ultimately results in computation of a bigger export profit
............
|
