|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1588 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of interest by invoking the provisions of Section 14A - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that when the interest income was more than the interest expenditure then the AO was not justified to invoke the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Act. We hereby reverse the findings of the authorities below and direct to delete the disallowance.
Facts being identical for A.Y. 2010-11 in solido applies. As far as the question of disallowance of administrative expense is concerned, although learned AR has raised this question, but no such ground has been raised before us as per the grounds of appeal. There was some mention in the statement of facts but in a situation when no specific ground as per grounds of appeal has been raised before us, therefore, we are not empowered to adjudicate an issue which has not been properly raised before us as per law. This part of the plea is, therefore, rejected.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1586 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Stay on recovery - Held that:- We dispose of the present Special Civil Application by directing the petitioner to pay ₹ 1.12 Crores on or before 31/01/2014 by equal instalments (as agreed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner recorded hereinabove and even as per the order dated 19/08/2013 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act). On deposit of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 1.12 Crores, the order of demand with respect to the remaining amount shall be stayed till 31/01/2014. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for extension of stay, which has been granted up to 31/01/2014 with respect to the balance amount and/or to challenge the order dated 19/08/2013 in so far as granting stay of recovery of the balance amount till the decision of the First Appeal or January, 2014, whichever is earlier and as and when such proceedings are initiated the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1584 - ITAT PUNE
Amortization premium paid on Govt. Securities - Held that:- We hold that disallowance of expenses under head "amortization of premium paid to Govt. Securities" debited to Profit and Loss Account are not justified the amortization of premium paid on Govt. Securities be allowed as claimed by assessee, Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.
Depreciation on securities held by bank as stock entry is directed to be allowed.
Addition made on account of suspense account balance - Held that:- The balance in suspense account represents various sums which remain payable at the end of the year which was paid or payable on demand by customers, so addition was not warranted. Accordingly, same be deleted. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that he is ready to justify its claim as per law for which no opportunity was given by lower authorities. In view of this, we restore this issue to Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same on facts and law after providing due opportunity of hearing.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1583 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP adjustment - benchmark the Corporate Guarantee Commission Prices - Held that:- It is our opinion that the Bank Guarantee Commission Prices cannot be used as External CUPs to benchmark the Corporate Guarantee Commission Prices. Further, we find that, unlike in other cases of NIL corporate guarantee commission, the present assessee has charged the GC Rate of 0.53% and 1.47% from its AEs. Therefore, in our opinion, these rates are competent given the facts of the present case qua the rates discussed and approved by the Tribunal in adjudicating the other cases relating to the Guarantee commission transactions benchmarked using the CUP method. Therefore, the TPO's comparables are IUPs' i.e. Incomparable Uncontrolled Prices. Therefore, .we are of the opinion, the GC rates of 0.53% and 1.47% benchmarked by the assessee are fair and reasonable and they should be accepted without any modification. Therefore', we dismiss the TPO's CUP and order deletion of the additions made by the AO on account of Transfer pricing, provisions. In the result, the order of the CIT(A)/TPO/AO on the TP adjustments is set aside.
Deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Held that:- Original claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the AY 2005-2006 is allowed and therefore, the alternate claim of depreciation is rightly rejected. Considering the relief granted by the Tribunal, allowing depreciation on the said amount is not sustainable. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the CIT(A)j is fair and reasonable-and it does not call for any interference.
Deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act in respect of export benefits in the form of DEPB licenses not allowed
Interest could not be levied u/s 234B of the Act in respect of such enhanced book profits under section 115JB
-
2013 (11) TMI 1582 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from undisclosed source u/s 68 - Held that:- The assessee has explained the source of obtaining the bogus loan being the amount received from the firm which has been offered by the firm to tax and subjected to the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, we do agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that double addition cannot be made in respect of the amount which is already subjected to tax in the hand of the partnership firm and the assessee received the same as application of the income of the partnership firm. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A) qua this issue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1578 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Withdrawal of status of Charitable Institution given to the appellant-assessee under Section 12AA(1)(b)(i) - Held that:- The Tribunal has reached a categorical conclusion that the assessee-Jammu Development Authority cannot be regarded as an institution or trust which may have been set up to achieve the objects enumerated under Section 2 of the Act particularly in view of the addition of first and second proviso made by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 to Section 12 AA of the Act. There are findings of fact that the assessee-appellant has not been acting to advance any of the object concerning general public utility. Even otherwise the proviso which has been added by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 stipulates that the advancement of any other object of the general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business or a cess or fee or any other consideration.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1577 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Liability to tax interest does not arise unless it accrues to the assessee - Not when the refund is actually granted in the relevant assessment year in MODVAT Credit - In interest u/s- 244A of the Act" - HELD THAT:- If an amount is due on a particular date and if that amount is unpaid on that date but paid on a subsequent date the recipient of that amount is deprived of legal due payment till actual payment. To compensate the denial of the benefit of the due payment interest is levied. It is not dependent on the claim in any legal proceedings when the assessee has received the money by interest on refund and the said amount required to be shown in the returns as an income making liable to pay tax. The amount offered for tax is not dependent on said interest became irrevocable or refundable. Therefore, the said finding is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. Thus, set aside. As the matter is already remitted to the assessing authority, firstly interest refunded should be calculated and the amount of refund on the subsequent orders by which the said benefit is sought to be withdrawn and thereafter calculate the interest taxable.
Allowance of provision for advances as a revenue expenditure by furnishing details without actual examination of those details - HELD THAT:- the direction given to Assessing Authority to allow the deduction for provision for advances. Further, observed that corresponding adjustment to the income exempted under Section 10A would also be warranted.
Deduction allowed for amount of expenditure incurred by the corporate office to 10A units despite non-involvement in any activity other than earning income mainly interest and dividend - HELD THAT:- the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction and thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - Decision in the case of Wipro Limited [2010 (8) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed
Expenditure allowance for Provision for warranty expenses despite not being written off & treated as the contingent liability - HELD THAT:- provision for warranty is rightly made by the appellant because it has incurred a present obligation as a result of past events. There is also an outflow of resources. Therefore, the appellant has incurred a liability during the relevant assessment year which was entitled to deduction u/s. 37 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, all the three conditions for recognizing a liability for the purposes of provisioning stands satisfied in this case. There are provisioning which relates to-
- present obligation,
- it arises out of obligating events,
- it involves outflow of resources and
- it involves reliable estimation of obligation.
Keeping in mind all the four aspects, we are of the view that the High Court should not to have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal in this case.
The decision in the case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] CHENNAI [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
Total turnover of software business taken into account for obtaining deduction u/s- 80HHE - HELD THAT:- the sales tax and excise duty has to be excluded from the turnover for computing deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act, accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The decision in this case of CIT v. Laxmi Machine Works [2007 (4) TMI 202 - SUPREME COURT] followed.
Raising additional substantial question of law - Non-consideration of the claim for capital loss as a colourable devise - Allowing the capital loss based upon the statements made in the affidavits of the Revenue in the matter relating to interim relief for stay of refunds - Allowance of the capital loss suffering from perversity -
"Subterfuge or contrivance" - obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes without resorting to subterfuges - Colourable devices - Tax Evasion vs. Tax Planning - HELD THAT:- "tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the frame work of law". "Colourable devices cannot be a part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honourable to avoid payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods". It is an obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes without resorting to subterfuges.
Decision in the case of VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS BV. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (1) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] and MCDOWELL AND CO. LIMITED VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [1985 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] - followed
-
2013 (11) TMI 1565 - ITAT CHENNAI
Entitlement for the benefit claimed u/s 54EC of the Act qua the latter investment of ₹ 50 lakhs as well made on 23.7.2009.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1551 - ITAT JAIPUR
Tds liability - assessee was observed to have paid 'blood processing charges' - (AO) was of the view that the said payment stood covered u/s. 194J - Held that:- From the copy of the receipt issued by the blood bank and the above reply of the blood bank, it is evident that payment is made by the patient or his relatives to the blood bank and not the assessee. It is settled law that the entries in the books of account are not decisive. It is the substance of the transactions which is to be seen. When the assessee did not make any payment to the Blood Bank, the question of affixing the liability u/s 194J upon the assessee, does not arise. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Applicability of provisions of section 192 or section 194J in case of retainer doctors - Held that:- Considering the facts of the assessee's case in the light of the agreement between the assessee and the retainer doctors, learned Accountant Member rightly held that the fixed monthly remuneration payable to retainer doctors is in the nature of salary liable for deduction of tax under Section 192 of the Income-tax Act. - Decided against assessee.
Mark up/profits earned by Fortis Health World Ltd. (FHWL) on sale of medicines to the assessee - whether is a commission chargeable to tax under section 194H or is a sale on which provisions of section 194H are not applicable? - Held that:- The agreement has to aspects - one is with regard to sale of the medicines by FHWL to the assessee. As per the agreement, FHWL is to sell the medicines at cost plus certain markup which has been fixed on the basis of turnover as given in paragraph 2.2 of the agreement. The second aspect is the providing of the manpower by FHWL to the assessee for smooth running of their pharmacy. However, as per Paragraph 2.6 of the agreement, all expenses incurred by FHWL on the employees and the smooth running of IPP Pharmacy are to be reimbursed by the assessee to FHWL on monthly basis. Thus, FHWL is not charging anything for providing the manpower for running the IPD Pharmacy. On the above facts, in my opinion, it cannot be presumed that the markup on the sale of medicines is to be treated as consideration for providing the manpower by FHWL to the assessee. Paragraph 2.2 of the agreement is very clear that FHWL is to sell the medicines to the assessee at purchase cost plus certain markup. Merely because the sale price is fixed as per the agreement between the parties, it cannot be said that the difference between the purchase cost and the sale price i.e. the markup is the commission for sale of medicines. The sale price charged by FHWL i.e., cost plus markup is the price of the medicines sold by FHWL to the assessee. Therefore, the stand of the Revenue that the markup is the commission cannot be accepted. Similarly, the view of the learned Accountant Member that the markup is a consideration for providing the manpower is also based upon the presumption and contrary to the express provisions of the agreement. - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1550 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Claim of investments u/s 54B and 54F - Assessee sold long term capital asset i.e. agricultural land - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- No reason to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A) as it was rightly held that Assessee is entitled to exemption under both section 54B & 54F of IT Act and they are not mutually exclusive and independent of each other. Similar view was taken by various judicial forums including that of coordinate bench, Hyderabad in the case Sri Venkata Raman Uma Reddy Vs. DCIT [2013 (1) TMI 744 - ITAT HYDERABAD] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1548 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on Working of capital gain and tax entire business income - CIT(A) directing AO to delete the working of capital gain and tax entire business income and not to treat any part there of as capital gain - invoking the provisions of section 153A - Held that:- During the appellate proceedings before us, assessee filed three compilations. In reply to the query of the Bench, it was stated that all the documents filed in compilations were before AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). To verify the same, assessment records were called for and it was found that certain documents claimed to have been filed before AO were not part of the assessment record. Learned counsel of the assessee was fair enough to concede that the papers which are not part of assessment records may be treated as additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) and therefore matter may be sent back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining remand report from the AO on this additional evidence. Ld. DR did not object to this submission of the assessee’s counsel. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1544 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowing adjustment U/s.145(A) - As in the closing stock of current year, excise duty of ₹ 4,64,949/- is not included also excise duty of ₹ 4,03,662/- is not included in the opening stock of the current assessment year - Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. reported at (2007 (11) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) has held that whenever any adjustment is made in the valuation of stock, this will effect both; opening as well as closing stock. In the present case also, the AO has not taken into consideration the opening as well as closing stock. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hereby direct the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 61,387/- and delete a sum of ₹ 4,03,662/-, Thus, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed to that extent
-
2013 (11) TMI 1542 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Order under Section 220(6) - necessity of passing speaking order - petitioners submitted the application before the concerned officers to stay the entire demand during the pendency and final disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A), in exercise the powers under Section 220(6) and by impugned communication / order / notice 50% demand has been stayed on certain conditions and / or same may be rejected treated as assessee in default under Section 220 of the Act - while exercising the discretionary powers under Section 220(6) of the Act under which circumstances and when AO may treat the assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in the Appeal ?
Held that:- While exercising discretion vested under Section 220(6) of the Act and during the pendency of the appeal against the order of assessment the assessee is required to be treated as not being in default, though the period to make the payment as provided under the Act has expired, the AO in following circumstances and eventualities is required to pass an order to treat the assessee as not being in default.
(a)If the demand in dispute relates to the issues that have been decided in assessee’s favour by appellate authority or Court earlier; or
(b)If the demand in dispute has arisen because the AO had adopted an interpretation of law in respect of which, there exist conflicting decisions of one or more High Courts or, the High Court ( not of the High Court under whose jurisdiction the AO is working); or
(c)If the High Court having jurisdiction has adopted a contrary interpretation but the Department has not accepted that judgment.
In a given case, the AO may exercise discretion in favour of assessee by granting reasonable installments. Even the AO may reserve the right to review the order passed after expiry of reasonable period, say upto six months and if the assessee has not cooperated in the early disposal of the appeal, or where a subsequent pronouncement by a higher appellate authority or Court alters the situation considered while passing under order under Section 220(6) of the Act, the AO may is a given case review the earlier order passed under Section 220(6) of the Act.
It goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Section 220(6) of the Act discretion is to be exercised by the AO judiciously and passed a speaking order as stated above.
In the case where the order of assessment is passed by the AO and the amount of tax determined is found to be high pitched i.e. substantiating the higher than the total amount of return income and assessee is in appeal, in such situation the AO is required to consider the case, on individual case to case basis and there may not be any straight jacket formula that moment on passing the order of assessment, income is found to be double the returned income declared in the return assessed, same is to be treated as high pitched assessment and in such situation the AO is bound to treat the assessee as not being in default. There can be no rule of universal application in such matter and order has to be passed keeping in mind the factual scenario involved. In such a situation and the case while exercising the discretion under Section 220(6) of the Act the AO may pass an order in favour of assessee on imposing such conditions as he deem fit either granting reasonable installments and / or to pass conditional order of deposit of some amount and with respect to remaining amount the security to be furnished, to protect the interest of the revenue.
Now, so far as impugned orders passed by the AO impugned in the present petition are concerned, it appears that while passing the impugned order and exercise the discretion by the AO under Section 220(6) of the Act, it appears that the aforesaid criteria / principle and / or circumstance has not been appropriately considered by the respective AO’s. Under the circumstances, impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be remanded to respective AO’s to pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law and on merits and considering the observations made by this Court herein above and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee to the extent the assessee may point out that in their case ground exist to exercise discretion in favour of assessee to treat him as not being in default and / or with respect to suitable installments and / or reasonable time to him to make the payment of demand.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1541 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Deduction u/s 35(2AB) - whether no in house scientific research has been carried out by the appellant? - claim of the assessee rejected on the basis that the assessee has not separately shown expenditure for in-house research & development - Held that:- From the details of expenses, it is seen that the amount was paid to ARAI, Pune and for purchasing certain items from the market from various parties. Merely getting approval from ARAI and purchasing certain material from the market cannot be said to be carrying out in-house research & development activity. In our considered opinion, research & development means to carry out research to find out some new technology or new equipment or product and that should be carried out inhouse as per the requirement of section 35(2AB) of the Act. From the details made available to us, it has not come out that any research & development activity was carried out by the assessee and therefore, the assessee is not eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of Benevolent expenses - the expenditure cannot be said to have been laid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - Held that:- In view of this Factory Order Part-II dated 20/01/2001, it cannot be said that the expenses incurred by the assessee company on account of death relief to the employee, is not business expenditure and, therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Learned CIT(A) on this basis is not justified. But still we feel that the details of collection from the employees and the contribution by the employer are to be examined by the Assessing Officer because the same was not examined by him in view of his outright rejection of the assessee’s claim. Though the details were brought on record before us but the same could not be reconciled and therefore, we feel it proper that for this limited aspect, the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. We accordingly set aside the order of Learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1539 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Local doctors' meeting expenses/individual doctor's services disallowed - Held that:- By the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002, expenditure on the doctors became unethical in the hands of doctors and it is stated so. However, whether the said expenditure is for the purpose of business or not is entirely a different aspect. Therefore, those observations will not have any binding on the issue. The claim of expenditure has to be examined vis-a-vis the provisions of section 37(1). Therefore, we do not see any reason to modify the directions in the order. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to keep the above aspects in mind while deciding the issue.
Allocation of corporate overheads to the unit entitled to deduction under sections 10B and 80-IB - Held that:- In the assessee's own case for the assessment year 200304, the issue was discussed and allocation of basic turnover was accepted in the assessee's case and so, we are of the opinion that the decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever [2012 (12) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has no bearing as binding precedent, being on the facts. As rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental representative, the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prestige Foods [2012 (6) TMI 266 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has upheld apportionment of expenditure between two units based on turnover and this judgment was distinguished by the hon'ble Madras High Court vide paragraph 7, on the reason that the assessee did not furnish expenses incurred by the units for the purpose of considering the deductibility. Since common expenditure is directed to be examined by the Assessing Officer and allocated to various units on the basis of turnover, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.
Rate of interest to be charged on loans granted to associated enterprises - TPA - Held that:- 7 per cent. rate is reasonable which is equivalent to LIBOR + 2 per cent. Be that as it may, since the assessee has accepted 7 per cent. in the earlier year and that is the basis for directing to adopt 7 per cent. by the Tribunal, we do not see any reason to modify the directions of the Tribunal in this regard.- Decided against assessee.
Non-consideration of revised return filed by the assessee giving effect to merger - Held that:- Since the ground is only with reference to consideration of revised return and not for the information therein, the Tribunal restricted itself to acceptance of revised return and rejected the contention as the revised return was belated. Further, the decision of NEPC India Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] now being relied in miscellaneous application has not been placed before the Bench at the time of arguments. Therefore, consideration or non-consideration of the same does not arise. Moreover, the assessee has not taken any alternate ground that effect of merger should be considered in the assessment proceedings on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal cannot traverse beyond the ground raised before it and, accordingly, restricted itself whether the revised return can be considered as valid or invalid. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the assessee has no merit and accordingly rejected.- Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1524 - ITAT GAUHATI
Benefit of deduction under section 80-IC denied - transport subsidy, interest subsidy and power subsidy - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Meghalaya Steels Ltd. and M/s Pride Coke Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 175 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] we allow the appeals of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction, to the assessee under section 80-IC treating all the aforesaid subsidies received to be part of the business profit and gains from the industrial undertaking in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed. - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance of expenditure incurred towards retainership fee paid - Held that:- authorities below have relied on their respective decisions taken in the earlier years on the same ground for the purpose of not allowing and allowing the deduction. The appeal of the assessee for the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e., 2004-05 came up for decision before the Tribunal. Vide order in Deputy CIT v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 489 - ITAT, KOLKATA], the Tribunal has accepted the assessee's claim on this issue by following the earlier order of the Tribunal. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order in granting the deduction in respect of retainership fee paid.
Disallowance of deduction in respect of guest house expenses - Held that:- Tribunal was pleased to grant deduction in respect of guest house expenses vide its aforestated order for the assessment year 2004-05. In the absence of any distinguishing feature having been brought to our notice by the learned Departmental representative, we uphold the impugned order in allowing deduction of the guest house expenses. This ground fails.
Disallowance of belated payment of provident fund, employees' State insurance, sales tax and other statutory liabilities - Held that:- amendment to the first proviso and the omission of the second proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 to be retrospective - the amount of employees' provident fund deposited before the due date cannot be disallowed under section 43B of the Act.
Disallowance of Aircraft flying rights charges - Held that:- assessee adduced necessary material to indicate that the aircraft was taken on hire for its business purposes. The Assessing Officer is not competent to decide the business expediency of incurring any expenditure. Be that as it may, it is observed that the Assessing Officer did not deny that log book of the aircraft was not furnished but only that the purpose for which the journeys were undertaken or the names of the persons who undertook the travel was not specified in the log book. It is in such circumstances, that he held 25 per cent. of the expenditure was for non-business purpose. - there can be no disallowance of expenses by considering the personal use of the assets by the directors. It has further been held that this disallowance cannot be sustained by treating the expenditure as for non-business purpose. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Deputy CIT v. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. [1999 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-D] has also taken similar view. Under these circumstances, we are therefore of the considered opinion that the learned was justified in deleting this addition - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1518 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee's failure to comply with the notice under section 142(1) - Held that:- it is evident that the notice had three paragraphs. In the printed pro forma of the notice, there is instruction to the Officer to "strike out items not applicable". However, none of the paragraphs has been stroked out. Sub-para (c) where the date and place of hearing is mentioned reads as "furnish in writing and verified in the prescribed manner information called for as per annexures and on the points or matters specified therein before me at my office at Room Nf.G-301, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan on November 3, 2010 at 11.30 AM". A statement has been made by learned counsel at the bar that along with the said notice, there was no annexure specifying the points or matters on which the assessee was supposed to file the explanation. On these facts, in our opinion, the notice is a vague notice and, when no specific information was called, what compliance is expected from the assessee is not mentioned, then if the assessee had not appeared on the date of hearing, it cannot be said that the assessee committed a default liable for penalty under section 271(1)(b). - it is not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1517 - ITAT MUMBAI
Method of accounting - Current liability - Purchase of negative of flim - Held that:- Amount of ₹ 10,00,000 was received as an advance by the assessee in the course of its business in the assessment year 2005-06. Even if the assessee following the cash system of accounting, the said advance of ₹ 10,00,000 would be considered as income of the assessee, in the year in which the assessee has performed the work. There is no material on record that the assessee has completed the work in the assessment year under consideration, viz, assessment year 2008-09. In view of the above, we consider it prudent that this issue be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider whether the income has accrued to the assessee in the assessment year under consideration, viz., assessment year 2008-09 in respect of the said advance amount received by the assessee in the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer will allow due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue afresh after considering such evidences as may be furnished by the assessee by a reasoned order as per law - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1512 - ITAT COCHIN
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS - Lease rent – applicability of provisions of section 201(1) as inserted by Finance Act, 2012 where recipient has shown the income in its return and paid the appropriate tax on such income - Held that:- The assessee was unable to pay the lease rent and therefore has passed only accounting entry for the treatment of leaserent and not deducted tax source thereon - The receiver of lease rent has filed the returns of income belatedly subsequent to the impugned proceedings - The assessee cannot be said to have satisfied the conditions prescribed in the proviso to sec. 201 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 – The assessee did not demonstrate as to how the provision of section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable on it – Decided against assessee.
............
|
