|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 771 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1679
TDS u/s 194C - Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The provisions of sec. 194C clearly states that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source either at the time of credit to the account of the contractor or at the time of payment thereof, whichever is earlier. It is further provided that the said liability would arise even if the amount is credited to any other account whether called “Suspense Account” or by any other name. Hence, in our view, the assessee would be liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194C on the amount provided under the head “provision for expenses”. Hence, we reject the contentions of the assessee that the TDS provisions shall not apply to the provision for expenses.
A careful reading of the provisions of sec. 194C would show that the said section is “contract” specific and not related to the income of the assessee. Hence, this argument of the assessee also fails.
No submissions would not absolve the assessee from the TDS liability u/s 194C of the Act, since a careful reading of the provisions of sec. 194C would show that the said section is “contract” specific and not related to the income of the assessee. Hence, this argument of the assessee also fails.
It is an admitted fact that the assessee has claimed the impugned amount as deduction in the succeeding assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2008-09. Though the assessee contends that it has claimed the same on protective basis, we do not find any such observation in the assessment order which is placed in the paper book filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly pointed out that the assessee has claimed the very same amount twice, i.e., in assessment year 2007-08 and also in assessment year 2008-09.- Decided against assessee.
In the preceding paragraphs, we have held that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on the provision for expenses created by the assessee. It an admitted fact that the assessee herein did not deduct tax at source from the amount of provision so created. We have already rejected various contentions urged by the Ld A.R. Under these circumstances, in our view, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold his order on this issue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1676
Addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly decided that the case of Sunil P.Mantri clearly falls u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. However, we are inclined to accept the alternate arguments of the Ld.AR that the additions are to be restricted only to the extent of the accumulated profits of the lender concern up to March 31st of the previous years relevant to the assessment years under consideration during which the loans/advances have been made to various concerns. Therefore, as regards the additions made in the hands of Sunil P.Mantri for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, we direct the AO to restrict the additions based on the accumulated profits of M/s Sunil Mantri Realty Ltd as on 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008 respectively, corresponding to the loans/advances made for the relevant assessment years i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Deleting the additions made by the AO in respect the sums repaid by the recipient concerns to the lender company for the A.Y 2009-10, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) restricting the additions to the extent of the accumulated profits of the lender concern, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) that the gross rent estimated by AO @ 7% of cost of the property interest in respect of the property located at Ambey Valley, Lonawala is reasonable and the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction in respect of interest paid are upheld.
Decision of the Ld.CIT(A) resulting in the deletion of the additions made in the hands of the recipient concerns on protective basis, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) has correctly relied on the decisions of Special Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd. reported in (2008 (11) TMI 273 - ITAT BOMBAY-E ) wherein it has been held that the intention behind the provision of section 2(22)(e) is to tax dividend in the hands of share-holder. The deeming provisions as it applies to the case of loans or advances by a concern to concern in which its share-holder has substantial interest, is based on the presumption that the loans or advance would ultimately be made available to the share-holder of the concern giving the loans or advances. The intention of the legislature is therefore to tax dividend only in the hands of the share-holder and not in the hands the concern
-
2013 (11) TMI 1675
Deduction 80IA - Held that:- valid reason to interfere with the findings and decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Velayudha Spinning Mills Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court ), while allowing the claim of the assessee under section 80IA of the Act on windmill. Therefore, we sustain the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both the cases.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1674
Addition u/s 41 - Held that:- Addition was made solely on the basis that said liability is more than three years, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error in deleting the addition of ₹ 51,37,327/- made under Section 41(1) of the Act. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal
-
2013 (11) TMI 1673
Deduction u/s.80IB(10) - Held that:- The main limb on which deduction was denied was for the reason that area of verandah was not excluded or exempt under section 78(3) of the Bye-laws of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. CIT(A) following the decision of his predecessor, decided the issue in favour of assessee with regard to 19 bungalows. With regard to bungalows C5 and D5 which admittedly are more than 1500 sq.ft., but were sold to the owners of the land and profit thereof has not been the subject matter of section 80IB(10). Accordingly, no adverse view has taken by CIT(A). Coming back to the issue of built up area as per bye-laws of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation with regard to 19 bungalows mentioned above, we find that Tribunal has set aside this issue to Assessing officer stating that the Finance Act of 2004 with effect from 01/04/2005 inserted the definition of built up area at subsection 14(1) of section 80IB. The 'built up area' was defined as under:
Built up area means the inner measurements of the residential unit at the floor level including the projections and balconies as increased by the thickness of the walls but does not include common areas shared with other residential areas.Technically speaking, the definition of 'built up area' as given above will be applicable only with effect from 01/04/2005. The Honourable Supreme Court in a recent Five Judge Bench decision in the case of CIT V/s Varas International Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (2) TMI 76 - SUPREME Court ] has held that for an amendment to be construed as being retrospective, the amended provision must indicate either by terms or by necessary implication that it is to operate retrospectively. Thus we restore this issue to Assessing Officer with similar directions.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1671
TDS u/s 194C - account of lorry booking as assessee failed to deduct TDS - Held that:- The contract of transportation was between the assessee's clients and the transporters and the assessee had mainly acted as a facilitator or as an intermediary. No tds deduction
-
2013 (11) TMI 1670
Penalty imposed u/s. 271B - reasonable cause in not getting accounts audited before prescribed date as per provisions of section 44AB - Held that:- According to assessee, income pertaining to this had been credited in Profit and Loss Account after survey on account of declaration of additional income. This income has been credited much later after specified date of audit and under no circumstances, assessee could have got books of accounts audited by 31.10.2006. Assessee could not anticipate on specified date that turnover of the assessee exceeded ₹ 40 lakhs. The assessee at the relevant point of time was prevented by reasonable cause for not getting its accounts audited as per provisions of section 44AB. He was under the bonafide belief at relevant point of time that his income has not exceeded the prescribed limit as per provisions of section 44AB of I.T Act.
In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that assessee was prevented or reasonable cause in not getting accounts audited before prescribed date as per provisions of section 44AB. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty imposed u/s. 271B of I.T Act.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1669
Levy of penalty u/s.271B - Held that:- As due to the leaving of service by the Accountant the accounts of the assessee could not be finalised in time for which there was delay in getting the audit report and finally the assessee has obtained the audit report on 16-01-2009. Further, the returned income at ₹ 8,51,340/- has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1668
Penalty u/s 271B - not getting the accounts audited before the statutory due date - Held that:- There is no absolute default and the assessee has filed Audit report although belatedly, we are of the considered opinion that there was bonafide reasons for not getting the accounts audited before the statutory due date and therefore this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the I.T. Act. In this view of the matter, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty levied u/s.271B of the I.T. Act.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1667
Entitlement to deprecation at higher rate on the vehicles leased out to third parties - Held that:- Assessee engaged in the business of lease financing was entitled to higher rate of depreciation on vehicles used for hire, even when the vehicles were leased out to a third party. See I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs. CIT [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2013 (11) TMI 1665
Unexplained purchases - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that Assessee deals in grey cloth and processed cloth and had obtained bank finance for working capital by hypothecation of the aforesaid stock. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that AO has compared the value and quantity of stock of grey submitted to the bank with that of book stock but had not made comparision of processed cloth, the quantitative details of which were also submitted to the bank. He has further noted that the aggregate stock of grey cloth and processed stock for the month of June 2003 as per the books of the assessee was ₹ 91.76 lacs as against the value of stock of ₹ 93.46 lacs submitted to the bank. He has further noted that for the month of Aug to Sept 2003 the stock submitted to the bank was lower than the stock as per books which therefore suggest that stock statement submitted to the bank was incorrect. He has further noted that AO has not brought any independent evidence which can prove that Assessee has purchased grey cloth out of undisclosed sources or Assessee was in fact in possession of higher quantity of stock. Before us, the Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1661
... ...
... ... ..... quot; 21. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 2005 274 ITR 354has held that the assessee-company had sufficient fund other than the borrowed money for giving the amount in question as loan to its sister-concern, which finding had not been specifically challenged in the present appeal. The conditions of s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act had been complied with and, therefore, the assessee company was entitled to full allowance of the amount of interest paid by it on borrowed capital. 22. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the interest was rightly allowable on the basis of the facts found and which have been referred to hereinabove. We do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law which could be said to emerge out of this case. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 23. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1660
Nature of income - business income or capital gain - Held that:- As in the PMS there was no assured guarantee against the loss or degeneration of capital, as per the SEBI guidelines the portfolio manager was authorised to purchase and sale of shares on behalf of the client against the securities after obtaining the written permission, that the portfolio managers were not authorised to undertake purchase/sale of securities that were settled otherwise then by actual delivery of transfer of securities, that they could make investment at their own discretion, that the investment made by the assessee through PMS was meant for maximisation of wealth and not with a view to purchase/sale of shares, that department had not disputed the fact that portfolio managers had the sale and absolute discretion to make investment for and on behalf of the assessee, that assessee had no role to play with regard to making of investment,that the very nature of PMS was that the investment made by the assessee could not be said to be scheme of trading of shares and stock, that the profit was to be assessed under the head Capital Gains.
Considering the above, we are of the opinion that FAA was not justified in holding that share transactions carried out by the assessee through PMS was taxable under the head Business.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1657
... ...
... ... ..... -03, being ITA No.914/Hyd/2002-03, is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (b) Revenue’s appeal, ITA No.900/Hyd/2011, for assessment year 2003-04, is dismissed. (c) Out of cross appeals for assessment year 2004-05, while assessee’s appeal being ITA No.915Hyd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No.901/Hyd/2011 is dismissed. (d) Assessee’s Appeal for the assessment year 2005-06, being ITA No.916/Hyd/2011, is allowed for statistical purposes. (e) Assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07, being ITA No.1052/Hyd/2011 is dismissed. (f) Assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, being ITA NBo.1053/Hyd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (g) Out of the cross appeals for the assessment year 2008- 09, while assessee’s appeal, being ITA No.313/Hyd/2012 is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue, being ITA No.468/Hyd/2012, is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 22.11.2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1656
Disallowance made under section 14A - Held that:- Since the investments in shares of group concerns are within the course of trading activities and out of commercial expediency and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ) is applicable to the assessee, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1655
Revision u/s 263 - deductions for premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policies - CIT exercising power under Section 263 held that deduction could not be allowed on premium paid to secure the lives of parties. The ITAT has set aside this order - Held that:- Similar issue is allowability of premium paid on lives of partners under Keyman Insurance Policy arose before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Exports [2010 (3) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COUR] and the said expenditure has been allowed. In view of the above said judicial precedents on the issue, the order of the Assessing Officer in allowing the claim of the assessee was a plausible view and the said view is not open for review by the CIT by way of invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act
-
2013 (11) TMI 1654
Transaction of share - Nature of income - LTCG or business income - Held that:- When in the earlier assessment order i.e for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 the same were treated as investment in shares and the Assessing Officer accepted the same as investment in shares, no error has been committed by the ITAT as well as the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in treating it as business income for the purpose of short term capital gain and long term capital gain.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1651
Disbursement of tax deducted at source (for short `TDS') to the decree-holders - Held that:- Perusal of relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act and Income Tax Act and law laid down in aforesaid judgments, it is clear that no tax is to be deducted at source from compensation awarded in lieu of acquisition of agricultural land. In respect of 'interest' it has to be seen whether interest is a part of compensation. If answer is in affirmative then tax cannot be deducted at source. If,however, it is for delay in making payment it does not form part of compensation and tax may be deducted at source.
Admittedly, in the instant case the land was agricultural land and enhanced compensation and interest was awarded under Section 28. Thus, in view of specific finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam's case (2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT) that amount awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is accretion in value of land and interest therein forms part of compensation; income tax cannot be deducted at source since land acquired is agricultural land.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1650
Disallowance of interest expenses - Held that:- Rejection/reliability of the books of accounts and the proposed adjudication of the Ld.CIT(A) in view of the said direction may have direct impact on the issue of the impugned liability, we set aside this issue also to the files of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh along with the adjudication of the respective ground pertaining to the rejection/reliability of the books of accounts
-
2013 (11) TMI 1648
Penalty u/s 271D - Held that:- In the case of Vinman Finance & Leasing Ltd (2008 (2) TMI 494 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ), it has been held that the genuineness of the loan does not take way the said loan from the sweep of the provisions of sec. 269SS of the Act. Hence, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by Ld A.R in this regard. We have already noticed that the assessee has failed to show that the impugned transaction will fall in the category of transactions prescribed under the proviso to sec. 269SS of the Act. The assessee has also failed to show that there existed a reasonable cause in accepting the impugned loan amount in cash. Hence, we are unable to sustain the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside his order and restore the penalty levied by the AO.
........
|
