|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1771
... ...
... ... ..... quo;deemed dividend’. The decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hilltop Hotels 217 CTR (Raj) 527 is also in favour of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT (A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 8. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a shareholder of the lender companies. As explained by the said Special Bench decision, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are applicable to the shareholders only and not to the beneficial shareholder like the present assesse. As such, Revenue has not demonstrated how the said Special Bench decision is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, considering the above settled legal position of the issue, we are of the opinion that we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) and confirm the same. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1770
... ...
... ... ..... th Tax was ever filed. No details of any bank account or cash balance with Snehalben S Shah was filed to substantiate the claim of cash received from the mother of appellant's wife. This cash was not utilized for the last 4-5 years, also cannot be accepted. The date of operation of bank locker was also not furnished. In the absence of any kind of corroborative evidence to prove that cash found from locker was received at the time of the death of the mother of appellant's wife, the explanation and the claim of the appellant that cash was received by his wife at the time of death of her mother and kept idle in bank locker for 3 to 5 years, cannot be accepted. So the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1.95 lacs on account of unexplained cash found is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal is dismissed.” 11. In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1769
... ...
... ... ..... ith gold business, it is hard to believe that he was keeping .65 Lakhs idle with him for a period of more than nine months, that too, to start business for his brother in gold as explained in the letter. First letter immediately addressed after seizure of the gold becomes very relevant. If he was dealing in the gold business he would have declared so in the said letter. But his explanation regarding the bank account was that he acted only as an agent for transferring funds from Mumbai to Kerala through his bank accounts. 9. In the light of the above stand of the assessee at the earliest point of time there is clear indication that the amount reflected in the bank accounts pertain to the transactions shown in the bank accounts having no connectivity with the cash shown in the hands of the assessee. In these circumstances, we decline to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. All the questions are answered against the appellant assessee. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1768
... ...
... ... ..... 7 Therefore, in view of the above the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the disallowance out of claim for deduction u/s. 80IA amounting to ₹ 34,63,530/- cannot be sustained. In view of this, the levy of penalty on such amount is hereby deleted..” 10. Having heard the submission of both the sides and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is a case where a disallowance was made by the AO on the basis of the material facts already on record and the said disallowance has become a subject of controversy. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. We find no force in this ground of the Revenue; hence, the same is hereby rejected. 11. In the result, quantum of appeals for A.Y. 2002-03 filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed that too for statistical purpose, however, the penalty appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1766
... ...
... ... ..... uestions of law did arise for consideration in assessee’s appeal for the period anterior to these appeals. Subsequently, in a batch of appeals, this Court had an occasion to consider all the substantial questions of law, which are framed in this case and all the substantial questions of law have been answered relying on the judgments of the Apex Court and various other High Courts. Though these questions did arise for consideration on the date the appeals were admitted as on today all those questions of law are already answered and therefore, over and again answering the said questions does not arise. 3. In that view of the matter, these appeals are disposed of, adopting the finding recorded in the assessee’s appeals in other connected appeals where all these substantial questions of law have been answered in favour of the assessee’s sister concern and against the Revenue. We do not see anysubstance in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1765
... ...
... ... ..... which are found to have been maintained on day-to-day basis and the same are audited by the Chartered Accountants and the return is supported tax audit report under section 44A(2)(b) and when the AO neither detected any defect nor discrepancies in the accounts of the assessee when the learned CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have deleted the aforesaid disallowance of ₹ 4,22,95,871/- and when the learned ITAT has directed to compute the income at 7.5% on gross receipt, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court. We are of the opinion that the reasoning given by the learned CIT(A) as well as the ITAT. It cannot be disputed that the estimation of proper rate is permissible and is, accordingly, done by the learned ITAT. As such no question of law much less substantial question of law arise in the present appeals. 7. In view of the above, both these tax appeals deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1763
... ...
... ... ..... best be said to be tentative or expected amount. This can not be treated as a conclusive proof. It is also not the case that on money transaction is proved on the basis of the registered sale deed. It is also not the case that circle rate or the value of the stamp duty of the impugned property is more than what has been disclosed. It is also not the case of that unaccounted cash have been found and to be paid by the assessee and received by the seller. In these circumstances, ratio from the Hon’ble Apex Court from the decision of the KP Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) and also from the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. PV Kalyansundaram in 294 ITR 49 (SC) are applicable. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedents as above, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1762
... ...
... ... ..... roposition. 5.1 As per the recent Tribunal order rendered in the case of Satsang Developers (supra), this issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal decisions Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of.... Reported in.... 1. DCIT vs. SMR Builders (P.)Ltd. (2012)24 Taxman.com 194 (Hyd.) 2. M/s.Vardhman Builders and Developers vs. ITO ITA No.559/Ind/2010 dated 09/05/2012 3. Raghava Estates Vs. Dy.CIT ITA Nos.248 & 49/Vizag/2009 dated 04/08/2011 5.2. Before us in the present two appeals also, reliance was placed on these tribunal decisions only. Respectfully following the Tribunal decision in the case of Satsang Developers (supra) and other Tribunal decisions which were followed by the Tribunal in that case and cited before us also, we decide the issue in the present two appeals also in favour of the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned on caption page.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1761
... ...
... ... ..... ancy rights. The Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding about the quantum of qualifying investment of ₹ 1,96,03,685. In view of these discussions, we are of the considered view that the assessee did not have any taxable capital gain in respect of receipt of ₹ 1,59,50,000 on account of surrender of tenancy rights. The relief granted by the CIT(A), therefore, deserves to be upheld.” 5. We find from the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Tejinder Singh (supra) that the issue is squarely covered and revenue has not denied that this is not surrender of leasehold rights. Once this is a fact that consideration received is on account of surrender of leasehold rights the property cannot be subject matter of section 50C of the Act as discussed in the Coordinate bench decision. Respectfully following the same we allow the appeal of assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1759
... ...
... ... ..... ondent(s) Mr.R.P.Bhatt, Ms.Sadhna Sandhu, Mrs.Gargi Khanna, Mrs Anil Katiyar, ORDER Leave granted.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1758
... ...
... ... ..... indal Global University (supra) held that at the time of granting approval for exemption u/s 80G, object of the trust is required to be examined and application of funds can be examined by Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. The only reason given by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order for rejecting the application of the assessee-trust u/s 80G(5) is that the assessee-trust has failed in making expenditure to the extent of 85% of its income. Keeping in view the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. O.P. Jindal Global University (supra), the recognition u/s 80G(5) cannot be refused on this ground. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of ld Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I and direct him to grant the recognition u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee-trust. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order pronounced in open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1757
... ...
... ... ..... Global Logistics Limited vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 217 (SB)(Mum.) has also held to the same extent. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be found to the view taken by CIT(Appeals) for deciding this issue in assessee’s favour. 6. Before parting with this matter, we want to make it clear that our decision is based in the backdrop of the facts that the deduct ion under sect ion 80IB could not have been tinkered with because no incriminating material was found during the course of search on this issue when original assessment granting deduct ion on this issue was completed under sect ion 143(3). We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case about the allowability or otherwise of deduct ion under section 80IB on interest income arising in the present facts and circumstances. 7. In the result, the appeal f i led by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1756
... ...
... ... ..... has been passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all other concerned persons by assigning cogent reasons and the order communicated to the petitioners reflects that the procedural requirement of s. 127(2) stood satisfied. It is not the case of the petitioners that opportunity of hearing was not granted to them nor the reasons were communicated to them and, therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the reason "for effective and coordinated investigation" for transferring of assessment cases was neither vague or ground sufficient and, therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred under s. 127 of the IT Act, 1961 and no case for interference is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1752
... ...
... ... ..... rder deserves to be quashed and set aside. However liberty can be reserved in favour of the department to pass an order afresh in accordance with law and on merits after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and if permissible under the law now. 6.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. Impugned order passed by the Assistant Commercial Commissioner Tax (2), Nadiad AnnexureF to the petition dated 31.03.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that the same shall not affect the proceedings under the Central Excise Act for which the showcause notice has been issued. A liberty is also reserved in favour of the department to pass reassessment order afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner and if permissible under the law now. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1751
... ...
... ... ..... us names. These transactions do indicate that the ledger account in page 23 does not pertain to Assessee Shri D.V.Krishna Reddy but pertains to M/s SVK Projects. Therefore, we are unable to understand as to how the addition can be made in the hands of Assessee, who is a partner in both the firms. We were informed that no action has been taken in the hands of M/s SVK projects. Since all the contributions/ transactions are pertaining to M/s SVK, we are of the considered opinion that the amount cannot be added in the hands of Assessee. In view of this, we have no hesitation in deleting the amount in the hands of Assessee. If there is any incriminating material or doubt about sources, revenue is free to enquire in the hands of M/s SVK, if required, but this is only an observation but not a direction. With these observations, addition made in the hands of Assessee stands deleted. 11. In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1748
... ...
... ... ..... there is no reason to make this addition, when the assessee has transacted his real estate deals through his bank accounts. The revenue is aggrieved by the said decision of Ld CIT(A). 54.1 An identical addition of peak credit balance was made in the assessment year 2004-05 also. We have dealt with the same in detail while considering the appeal of that year. All the observations made therein shall also apply for the year under consideration. Consistent with the view taken in assessment year 2004-05, in this year also, we hold that there is force in the submission of the assessee that he has routed through major portion of sale proceeds of real estate business and vehicle business through his bank accounts. 55. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 is dismissed. All other appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. The appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. All other appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1746
... ...
... ... ..... d part of this exception, which requires that even if the loan is given by the company to the shareholder in the ordinary course of business, it has to be seen that lending of money is substantial part of the business of the company. On this aspect, it was held by the Tribunal that if the money lending business of the lender company constituted more than 20% of the total business of the company, the lending of money could be said to be substantial part of the business of the company. In the present case, the assessee is not satisfying with the first requirement of this clause that the loan in question was given by the lender in the ordinary course of business and therefore, there is no requirement of examining the second part of the stipulation as to whether such advancing of loan in ordinary course of business is substantial part of the business of the lender company or not. This ground of the Revenue is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1745
Determination of a project as "Housing project" u/s-80-IB(10) - Approval of Project and Completion date as per Sec-80-IB(10) - Project undertaken a "works contract" - Undertaken "Contract risk" or "Investment risk" - HELD THAT:- the project was considered to be an housing project, which is within the ambit of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
The method adopted by the assessee is according to his business convenience and in our opinion, the housing project is on the size of plot of land having more than 1 acre and therefore, on this account, the benefit available under section 80IB(10) cannot be denied and the ld. CIT(Appeals), after discussing in detail has held that the housing project constructed by the assessee is in 1 acre of land and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the issue raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
The project executed by the assessee was not of the nature of works contract and the assessee undertook investment risk.
The ownership is not an essential condition to get the benefit under section 80IB(10). In this case, the assessee being a developer as well as builder is entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.
The decision in this case of CIT v. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CTR 258 & CIT v. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise 255 CTR (Mad) 156 [2012 (12) TMI 84 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] were followed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1744
... ...
... ... ..... plated. It is not in dispute that the assessee later completed the construction and has occupied the residential house. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act to the assessee. We therefore confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee has raised some alternative contentions before us with regard to the year in which the capital gain ought to have been brought to tax. According to him the capital gain cannot be brought to tax in AY 09-10 because of the provisions of Sec.54F of the Act and that only in the year of default of compliance with conditions u/s.54F of the Act, capital gain can be brought to tax. We have not gone into those contentions in view of our conclusions as above. 13. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1743
... ...
... ... ..... succeeds. Finally, it may not be out of place to state that the Revenue has not applied itself in the matter. Besides not bringing the full facts to the fore per its orders, with even the relevant Agreement/s being not on record, it has also not considered the assessee’s alternate contention that the payee having accounted for the entire receipt as its income, paying taxes thereon, no tax could be recovered. The same is by now a well settled proposition, so that, where so, no tax could be recovered, and the Revenue is only entitled to the interest u/s. 201(1A) for the difference in the time period, i.e., even assuming that tax was to be deducted at a higher rate. Further, we also observe that it (Revenue) has applied the TDS on rent @ 20% for all the years, while the rates stands, post 01.10.2009, modified to 10%. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for all the years are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on November 27, 2013
........
|
