|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1742
... ...
... ... ..... sted on the gross profit estimated by the Officer, when the purchase and sale were guided by the price fixed by the Government and comparable date therein was also available. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, if the assessee had any agricultural operation and earned income, certainly, it was always open to the assessee to bring any such material to substantiate the facts. The facts, therefore, ought to have been brought before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority to substantiate the case of the assessee, that he had been in receipt of the income earned out of agricultural operation. In the absence of any materials shown or onus discharged in the manner known to law, we do not agree with the assessee's contention based on the decisions cited. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Tax Case (Appeals) and thereby in confirming the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tax Case (Appeals) stands dismissed. No costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1741
... ...
... ... ..... y if at all the said person had used the assessee’s credit cards and made payments or not. In these circumstances, we observe that the findings under challenge arrived at by the CIT(A) suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, we deem it appropriate that the matter be re-examined afresh by the Assessing Officer as per law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who would be at liberty to produce cogent evidence, if any, in support of the claim. The Revenue’s appeal stands accepted for statistical purposes. 9. Since there is only once issue raised in appeal by the Revenue and assessee’s cross objections support the order under challenge passed by the CIT(A), the same also stand accepted for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 27th of November, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1740
... ...
... ... ..... he used to collect a token amount and if any student did not get the admission that he is used to refund the said amount. We also find that the assessee could not co-relate the amount of the cash seized with the amount noted on the loose papers. Moreover, the assessee has also explained how he is using code figures in respect of his consultancy fees. Once he admits the contents of documents and also explains same then in such circumstances he can not cry that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained addition in his hand. In our opinion to the extent of ₹ 2,00,50,000/- the addition has to be sustained in the hands of the assessee on Substantive Basis as in the case of Bharati Vidyapeeth the said addition has been deleted. Accordingly Grounds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are dismissed. 18. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Ys. 2004-05 and 2005-06 are allowed and the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07 is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 29-11-2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1739
... ...
... ... ..... losses in respect of depreciation of ₹ 37,91,077/- of current year and unabsorbed deprecation of ₹ 23,35,717/- for A.Y. 2007-08. It was pointed out on behalf of Authorized Representative that Assessing Officer has not mentioned about the depreciation of current and unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2007-08. CIT(A) found this contention correct that Assessing Officer was not mentioned above these losses which he was required to do so. So, he directed Assessing Officer to indicate specifically the depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y.2007-08 while giving effect to this order. This factual reasoned finding of CIT(A) need no inference. We held the same. As a result appeal of revenue for this year is dismissed. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2009-10. Following the same reasoning, the appeals of revenue on both accounts is dismissed. 5. In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the day 21st of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1737
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee is regarding unexplained investment in construction of bungalow of ₹ 1,63,845/-. Both the parties submitted that on this issue, the facts are identical with the issue in the assessee’s appeal for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005. For the reasons recorded in the foregoing paras of this order, while disposing of the assessee’s appeal, for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005 in IT(SS)A.No.212/Ahd/2010, we hold that the assessee is entitled to telescopic benefit to the extent of his share in the profit & loss account in the partnership firm, in the peak amount assessed in the case of the firm of ₹ 5,76,670/-, and accordingly, the addition on account of unexplained investment is reduced by ₹ 69,260/- out of unexplained investment of ₹ 1,63,845/- and the balance addition is confirmed. 19. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1735
... ...
... ... ..... nment securities was made as per prudential norms of the RBI and same was allowable deduction. In view of above, assessee was justified in contending for amortisation of premium paid in excess of face value of securities held to maturity (HTM) category or period remaining till maturity was found reasonable by the CIT(A). Accordingly addition of ₹ 17,91,659/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing amount towards amortisation of Government Securities (HMT) was deleted. This reasoned factual and legal finding of the CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 9. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 2.1 Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, Assessing Officer is directed to allow ₹ 13,50,000/- on account of amortization premium paid on Govt. Securities held under HTM category. 3. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the day 27th of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1733
... ...
... ... ..... rayed that notice issued under section 153C be held as bad in law and hence the assessment made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C be treated as null and void abinition. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 the addition made by learned Assessing Officer by disallowing claim of depreciation @ 80% on civil work when such disallowance is not made on the basis of any material seized during the course of search and hence addition made under section 153C be deleted as the addition made on this account is beyond the scope of sec. 153A.” they have not been pressed at the time of hearing and accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Accordingly, the Cross-objection is partly allowed. 11. The aforesaid decision shall apply to all the captioned appeals of the Revenue and Cross-objections of the assessee. 12. Resultantly, whereas the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, the Cross-objections of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1732
... ...
... ... ..... able on the borrowings taken against these FDRs. We direct accordingly. 6. The AO has also made addition of ₹ 12.00 lacs on account of interest earned on money lending business undertaken by the assessee which he accepted during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. From the record, we found that during the course survey, the assessee has accepted the fact of advancing the money on interest. In respect of the cash amount withdrawn from the bank, the AO computed the interest at 18% which comes to ₹ 12.00 lacs and added the same in assessee’s income. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis prevailing market rate of interest, we direct the AO to restrict the addition on account of interest income by computing the same @ 12% instead of 18%. We direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1731
... ...
... ... ..... ssee but due to technical reasons in uploading the return electronically and due to delay of few hours in getting connectivety, the date has changed from 30-09-2009 to 01-10-2009. In view of mitigating circumstances, the delay can be condoned. Further, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), the Courts have held that due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4). In view of this reason also the order of CIT(A) is to be upheld. In Assessee’s units own case when it was a proprietary concern of Sri S. Venkataiah in earlier year, ITAT elaborately discussed the issue and upheld CIT(A)’s order dismissing Revenue’s appeal as devoid of any merit. Respectfully following the said order of coordinate bench, which the learned CIT(A) also followed, we dismiss the grounds raised by Revenue in this regard. 6. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1730
... ...
... ... ..... substantial amount of ₹ 6,50,000/- in cash with him for a period of over one year without depositing into the bank account. The assessee has also not shown any valid reason as to why he kept so much cash with him for over a period of one year when he was holding a bank account. In the absence of any cogent reason backed by sufficient evidence, the explanation of the assessee is only a make believe story and hence cannot be accepted. The decisions relied upon by the learned AR will also be of no help to the assessee as in the present case the assessee has failed to prove the source of deposit with valid reasons and proper evidence. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 6,50,000/-. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) by dismissing the ground raised by the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 22-11-2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1726
... ...
... ... ..... ears from relevant assessment years the assessment was reopened on the ground that excessive relief was granted to assessee on the basis of TDS certificates. The Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold that since order allowing credit of TDS was traceable to section 155(14) read with section 154 and by claming credit for TDS could not be said to have furnished untrue or incorrect particulars of income nor could not be said to have furnished untrue or incorrect particulars of its income nor could it be said by allowing credit for TDS the AO has given excessive relief, in such circumstances, assessment proceedings could not be reopened in terms of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147. 14. In view of above cited decisions we are of the view that there was no infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected. 15. Consequently appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1725
... ...
... ... ..... ded by s. 12AA(2) of the Act. We accordingly direct the respondents, subject to any order which may be passed under s. 12AA(3), to treat the petitioner society as an institution duly approved and registered under s. 12AA and to recomputed its income by applying the provision of s.11 of the Act. Accordingly, a formal certificate of approval will be issued forthwith to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2." 4.1 Applying the principle so laid down, where Commissioner does not pass any orders even after six months from receipt of Tribunal's order remitting the matter to him, the registration will be deemed to have been granted. Of course, this is subject to exercise of Commissioner's power u/s.12AA(3) in appropriate cases, but the registration will be deemed to have been granted. Accordingly, the CIT is directed to grant the registration u/s 12AA of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2013)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1724
... ...
... ... ..... he above cited decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court hold that the action of the AO in initiation of reopening proceedings based on the above stated reasons recorded merely relying on the information received from the investigation wing of the department was not justified, hence it is held as invalid and in consequence the assessment made in furtherance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is also held void ab initio. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 8. On the merits of the additions questioned in ground No. 2 & 3 Ld. DR has tried to justify orders of the authorities below. We however find that these grounds have become infructuous in view of our decision on the issue raised in ground No. 1 hereinabove whereby the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and assessment made in furtherance to has been held void. These grounds are disposed off accordingly. 9. In the result appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1723
... ...
... ... ..... n in respect of such expenditure is claimed by the assessee. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has not claimed the expenditure on purchase of land by debiting the same to the profit & loss account but the expenditure for purchase of land has been debited to work-in-progress. The CIT(A) has already directed that the work-in-progress is to be reduced by the disallowance required to be made under Section 40A(3). In our opinion, the direction of the CIT(A) is fully justified. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The order of learned CIT(A) is sustained. 5. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal Projects Pvt.Ltd. also, the facts and the order of the CIT(A) are identical. For the detailed discussion in paragraph 4 above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) in this case. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1722
... ...
... ... ..... d by the learned CIT(A) at 22 per cent as against 18 per cent declared by the assessee, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) neither considered the past history of the assessee nor the GP rate declared by any other comparable case. It is not brought on record that how and in what manner GP rate declared by the assessee was on lower side. We are of the opinion that the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) by applying the GP rate at 22 per cent was not justified. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, are of the view that the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) on account of estimation of bricks and applying the GP rate @ 22 per cent was not justified, accordingly, the same is deleted. For the aforesaid view, we are also fortified by the decision dt. 30th Aug., 2013 of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case Prince Udhyog (supra). 11. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1721
... ...
... ... ..... TPO shall follow the same pattern and parameters adopted for the subsequent assessment year 2008-09, as accepted by TPO and DRP. 39. When we have finally zeroed down to the DCF method, our observation and discussion on other arguments advanced by the assessee may look academic. For that inherent reason, we leave all those issues raised by the learned senior counsel, open. 40. We accept the contention of the assessee on the question of levy of interest under Section 234B in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jacabs Civil Incorporated (supra). Accordingly, the assessing authority is directed to delete the levy of interest under Section 234B. 41. In the result, as far as the TPO matter is concerned, it is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further transmission to the TPO and thereafter for the purpose of finally concluding the assessment in accordance with law. 42. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1720
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee as per ratio of the judgments of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules but the disallowance has not been made as per ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra). Therefore, we find it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction that the Assessing Officer shall examine the issue by considering detailed synopsis of the submission of the assessee de novo after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of above, the grounds of the assessee are disposed of and may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1719
... ...
... ... ..... rthcoming he treated 5 per cent of the turnover of ₹ 8,00,990 as undisclosed profit thereby making an addition of ₹ 40,050. Such addition made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that no unaccounted sale was found during the survey and thus the addition on account of undisclosed profit was wrong. However, in the absence of books of account or the details of stock, the CIT(A) worked out the excess stock as on the date of survey at ₹ 20,742 and directed the AO to retain such an addition. Against the aforesaid, assessee is in appeal before us. 136. After considering the rival pleas, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is on justifiable grounds. 137. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 138. Resultantly, whereas the appeals of the respective assessees except ITA No. 376/Pn/2012 in the case of M/s National Auto Works (which is dismissed) are partly allowed, those of the Revenue are dismissed, as above.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1718
... ...
... ... ..... e trust. Though this letter has been acknowledged by the DIT(Exemption) in his order but even then, he has rejected the application of the assessee. He therefore prayed that assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. DIT(Exemption). Ld. DR did not object to this prayer of the learned counsel of the assessee. Therefore, the matter is being restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court
-
2013 (11) TMI 1717
... ...
... ... ..... der - "2. The revenue has taken following effective ground of appeal - "That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant and machinery purchased out of withdrawal from NABARD". 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue is squarely covered in fvour of the assessee by the ITAT Kolkata Bench’s order in the case of ACIT -vs.- M/s. Goodricke Group Ltd. in ITA No. 2557/Kol/2004 dated 10th June, 2005. The ld. D.R. has not disputed the above submission of the ld. AR of the assessee. In view of the above, ground no. 1 taken by the revenue is rejected". Respectfully following the decision, we dismiss ground no. 5 of the Revenue. 18. Ground No. 6 is general in nature and need for adjudication. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objection by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of November, 2013.
........
|
