|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1716
... ...
... ... ..... y the AO on account of capital gain. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 15. As regards ground No. 2, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to assessee's claim for deduction on account of security charges of ₹ 1,03,000 as business expenditure is consequential to the main issueraised in ground No. 1. As the main issue involved in ground No. 1 has already been decided by us in favour of the assessee holding that the income from the activity of plotting and selling of plots of land constituted business income of the assessee and not capital gain, the security charges of ₹ 1,03,000 paid by the assessee is liable to be allowed as deduction as the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of said business. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) allowing the said deduction and dismiss ground No. 2 of Revenue's appeal. 16. In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1714
... ...
... ... ..... ranting relief under said section, even if such independent units are situated side by side, on different floors or are purchased under separate sale deeds. The High Court of Andra Pradesh in the said case has agreed with the findings of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. D. Anand Basappa (Supra). Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the light of consistent view of different High Courts, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has correctly decided that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54 of the Act as regards the investments/cost of construction claimed by the assessee in respect of all the flats. In view of that matter, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count and the same is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1711
Accrual of Income - Addition of amount in business income by computed percentage completion method - Question of applicability of AS-7 by ICAI - HELD THAT:- the income in the instant case is to be computed as per system of accounting followed by the assessee or as per accounting followed by the assessee or as per accounting standard AS-7 for charging of income tax. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 145 of the Act the business income is assessable under the Income Tax Act to be computed according to the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee unless such system is defective and / or from such system of accounting, profit cannot be deduced. The option for choosing the system of account lies with assessee provided the system is consistently followed and non-defective system. Thus, provisions of AS-7 cannot override the provisions of Section 145 so far as the computation of business income for the determination of income is concerned. In Court's view, even a project completion method is also a recognized system of accounting. Simply the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has recommended percentage completion method does not mean that project accounting or the same is a defective system of accounting. Therefore, the same is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Thus it has been found that the assessee is consistently following accounting system of percentage completion method, which is permissible and accepted by ICAI and CBDT with respect to construction work
The decision in the case of Nandi Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 80 TTJ (Bang) 750 [2003 (4) TMI 224 - ITAT BANGALORE-C] followed.
Hence, present appeal is dismissed - Decided against the Revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1710
... ...
... ... ..... llant firm and is being used for the purposes of business of the appellant firm. In such a case, in my considered view the appellant is entitled to claim depreciation on these cars. The appellant's case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs CIT(1999) reported at 239 ITR 775 (S.C). In view of above facts, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellant. The A.O. is directed to allow depreciation on motor cars of ₹ 2,93,169/-. This ground of appeal is allowed.” Since Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd vs. CIT(1999) reported at 239 ITR 775, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 21. In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (11) TMI 1708
... ...
... ... ..... such, eligible for an indefinite carry forward against the profits and gains for the subsequent years. The writ petition by the assesseepetitioner was accordingly allowed by the hon’ble court. Though the hon’ble court did not have the benefit of the decision by the Special Bench in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd. (supra), rendered by drawing on several decisions by the hon’ble apex court, the matter being legal, the decision by the hon’ble high court shall prevail. 3.2 In view of the foregoing, respectfully following the decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), i.e., in preference to the decision by the special bench of the tribunal in Times Guaranty Ltd. (supra), we hereby direct for the allowance of the assessee’s claims in accordance with and in terms of the said decision. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced in the open court on November 27, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1707
... ...
... ... ..... ith the amounts." 24. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the amount having been already offered to tax in the year 2006-07 and it being a finding of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. 25. Insofar as the issue of reopening of the assessment under section 147 r/w section 148 of the Income Tax Act is concerned, the same question is only academic in nature and remains academic as ultimately amount as found by the assessing officer has been taxed though in a subsequent year and therefore, is not required to be considered. 26. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or ambiguity in the orders impugned passed by the authorities below so as to call for interference of this Court. It is essentially a finding of fact and no substantial question of law can be said to arise. 27. Accordingly, both the appeals, being devoid of merits, are being dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1705
... ...
... ... ..... lation of Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act by the trustees by deriving direct or indirect benefit from the money or property of the assessee trust. 66. So far as Ground Nos. 9 and 10 are concerned these are consequential in nature and no specific adjudication is required. So far as applicability of Sec.115BBC is concerned the assessee has already offered anonymous donations to the extent of ₹ 21,57,000/- to tax which has been separately taxed in the assessment order. To sum up we hold that - a) The registration of the assessee u/s. 12A/12AA has been restored by the Tribunal and b) The assessee has not violated the provisions of Sec. 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) nor has violated any of the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act hence, the assessee is entitled for benefit of exemption as claimed by it u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act in A.Y. 2006-07 & A.Y. 2007- 08. 67. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2007-08 is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 27-11-2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1704
... ...
... ... ..... nitoring system at seven locations in Madhya Pradesh and four locations in Rajasthan, under intimation to C-WET and State Nodal Agencies, thus, the assessee company, apart from rendering technical services to its clients, did research in the field of development of WPP at its own and incurred expenditure of ₹ 51,41,440/-. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue with the help of any positive material. Since the research done by the assessee is used for the benefit of public, therefore, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A). We affirm the same. 4. Now, we shall take the Cross-objection No.61/Ind/2013. The learned Counsel for the assessee broadly pointed out that it is in support to the impugned order. Since we have affirmed the conclusion drawn in the impugned order, it has remained for academic interest only, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1703
Restriction of disallowance of interest expenses to the dividend income - Disallowance of Dividend income in business income - Considered attributable to ‘income from other sources’ - Limitation of deduction u/ s.80M - Application of CUP method instead of transaction net margin method (TNMM) - HELD THAT:- Only 90% of the net amount of any receipt of the nature mentioned in clause (i) of Explanation (baa) which is actually included in the profit of the assessee is to be deducted from the profits of the assessee for determining “profit of the business” of the assessee under Explanation (baa) to section 80 HHC of the Act.
Deduction under section 80M is to be allowed on net dividend income computed as per provisions of section 57 to 59; shares held by the assessee company being capital investment and not stock-in-trade, dividend could only be assessed under the head “other sources” and only expenditure referred to in section 57 could be deducted to arrive at net dividend and, therefore, proportionate management expenses or interest or other expenses could not be deducted while computing dividend income for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s.80M. Accordingly, Court declined to interfere in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Decision in this case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 343 ITR 89 [2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 1TR 1 (SC) [1976 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1702
... ...
... ... ..... d for earning of exempt income. In the case under appeal before us, from the perusal of the assessee’s profit & loss account, it is evident that the total expenditure incurred was 49,04,028/- only. Thus, the assessee claimed the deduction for the expenditure of 49,04,028/- which is debited to the profit & loss account. The disallowance cannot exceed the expenditure actually claimed by the assessee. We, therefore, accept the assessee’s contention that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) in excess of total expenditure debited to profit & loss account was unjustified. Accordingly, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of expenditure actually claimed by the assessee i.e. 49,04,028/-.” 7. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merits in the appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th day of November 2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1696
Eligibility for deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) to Co-operative bank - Provision for ‘Reserve for NPA' used according to the RBI directions - "Provision for loss on investment" an allowable deduction - HELD THAT:- the provision for NPA is not equal to provision for bad and doubtful debts. The provision for bad and doubtful debts means the debt is either become bad or its recovery is doubtful, whereas, Classification of NPA as per RBI guidelines means that recovery of principle and interest could not be made in the particular period from the party and that does not mean as per the accounting standard issued by the ICAI, it became either bad or recovery is doubtful. Thus, not eligible for deduction since the above provisions are not in accordance with Sec.36(1)(viia)
The terminology ‘Reserve for NPA’ has been used by the assessee in accordance with the RBI directions. As is evident from the assessment order, the assessee has indeed created ‘Reserve for NPA’. For claiming benefit under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia)(a) the conditions to be satisfied is: that provision for bad and doubtful debts should have been made by the bank eligible to claim such deduction. Co-operative Banks do not strictly follow the provisions of Banking Regulation Act for the purpose of maintaining their Books of Accounts. Therefore, creation of provisions for bad and doubtful debts may be under different nomenclature. This will not disentitle the assessee for claiming deduction under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia(a). The purpose for creation of reserve for NPA is same i.e., creating provision towards bad and doubtful debts.
The decision in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Baroda, 262 ITR 334 (Bombay) [2003 (3) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Therefore, the claim of ₹ 19,57,916/- becomes allowable. We order to allow the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bank is allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1695
... ...
... ... ..... 009-2010 ₹ 1,26,94,479/- and for A.Y 2010-2011 ₹ 76,08,948/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and dismiss the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue. 20. Before parting with the issue, we like to bring on record the fact that the decision relied upon by the learned DR in the case of Mukesh Travels Co. (supra) is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the facts of the instant case. In that case, the Tribunal found that various persons to whom the payments were made by the assessee carried out the work of carrying passengers, whereas in the instant case, the transportation work was done by the assessee and various persons to whom the payments were made by the assessee simply hired out their vehicles to the assessee. Therefore, the above case does not support the case of the Revenue in the instant case. 21. In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1694
... ...
... ... ..... tion of the project as per the amended provisions also has not expired till last date of the previous year relevant to present assessment year. 6.3 The last objection of the Assessing Officer is that the commercial area, as per the approved project, is in excess of 5 of the total built up area of the project. On this issue, the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manan Corporation (supra) is in favour of the assessee and as per the same, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and hence, respectfully following this judgment, we hold that this objection of the Assessing Officer is also not valid. 6.4 As per our above discussion, we have found that none of the objections raised by the Assessing Officer is valid and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on caption page)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1692
... ...
... ... ..... on in the orders on the facts related to the claims relating to the speculation loss. The orders of the Revenue on these issues are found deficient on the said issues. Further, it is also noticed that the “principles of consistency” are not discussed in the impugned order considering the facts of the present case. In the remand order, the AO needs to go into the reasons for treating the share activity as capital gains since the year 2000. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that these two grounds should be remanded to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh finding on the issues raised in these grounds. The CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing a speaking order on the issues raised by the assessee. Accordingly, grounds No.2 & 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th of Nov.2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1691
... ...
... ... ..... ere not fully verifiable. No attempt was considered necessary to point out the specific defects; infirmity or deficiency presumably noted by him. The said action cannot be upheld. The assessee can be hauled up for offering a general explanation if despite specific defects pointed out he fails to offer a specific and plausible explanation. In the absence of any specific deficiency pointed out by the AO the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the order can not be upheld. In view of the above we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue back to the AO who is directed to confront the assessee with the specific objections noted by him qua the additions made and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law by way of a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd of November 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1690
... ...
... ... ..... e basis of value taken by the Registrar for stamp duty purposes, but nothing was brought on record to substantiate that the assessee had invested more than the amount shown in the books of accounts. Therefore, addition made by the AO was not justified. 17. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Rawat (supra) has held as under "The market rates for the purpose of registration of an immovable property as notified by the Sub-Registrar can also have no application for determining the market value under Chapter XX-C of the Act. It is limited only for payment of the stamp duty." 18. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. 19. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed. In favour of assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1683
Whether the receipt treated as FTS by the AO should be included as part of total consideration of sub-contract receipt and deserves to be assessed as per provisions of Sec. 44BB of the Act and the balance receipt is also to be assessed u/s. 44BB of the Act? - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with its business, therefore, provisions of Sec. 44BB clearly apply on the facts of the case. The AO has grossly erred in considering part of the income of the assessee as fee for technical services without pointing out which part relates to FTS. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the entire income to be taxed u/s. 44BB of the Act.
The work/services done by the assessee do not come within the purview of Sec. 9(1)(vii) of the Act
Assessee would be liable for paying interest u/s. 234B of the Act.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1682
Eligible for the benefit of DTAA between India and UAE - Held that:- CIT(A) erred by confirming the order of the assessing officer when the assessee has submitted the copy of the certificate from the Min. of Finance and Industry of UAE to the effect that the assessee is qualified in terms of the DTAA between India and UAE as resident in the United Arab Emirates to enjoy the benefit of the said agreement, for the fiscal year 1997-98, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the DTAA. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to give relief / benefit of DTAA with UAE
-
2013 (11) TMI 1681
... ...
... ... ..... As regards ground No. (i), it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to assessee's claim for loss pertaining to the hotel business is similar to the one involved in ground No. (h) inasmuch as the ld. CIT(A) after having accepted that the hotel business of the assessee was commenced during the year under consideration, allowed the claim of the assessee for ₹ 8,18,327/- for the year under consideration. As we have upheld the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the hotel business of the assessee was commenced during the year under consideration while deciding ground No. (h), we uphold his impugned order allowing the consequential relief to the assessee in terms of the loss claimed in respect of hotel business of ₹ 8,18,327/-. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and ground No. (i) of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 28. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013. .
-
2013 (11) TMI 1680
Levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) - Late filing of TDS return - HELD THAT:- the penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act merits to be restricted to the date of deposit of tax at source which admittedly is beyond the due date of filing the TDS returns.
The decision in support was laid down in H.M.T. Ltd. Tractors Division Vs CIT [ 274 ITR 544 (P&H) ] [2004 (8) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that where the tax at source had been paid in time and the necessary return in respect thereof was filed in time with the income tax department, on mere late issue of tax deduction certificate, there was no loss to the Revenue and the delay in furnishing the tax deduction certificate was merely technical or venial in nature and penalty could not be imposed. Accordingly, direction given to the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalty leviable under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act in line with our directions. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are, thus partly allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
........
|
