|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 772 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Jain (supra) held that non-production of books of account and estimate of higher net profit did not find it justified to levy the penalty. The other decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly support the case of the assessee that on mere estimate of income, penalty is not leviable. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arjun Prasad Ajit Kumar (supra) held that penalty could not be imposed on the basis of estimating sales and applying net profit for the purpose of making addition. All these decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly support the contention of the assessee that penalty is not leviable on estimate of income. Following the same decisions, we do not find it to be a fit case for levy of penalty. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (6) TMI 771 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee has complied with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the entire expenditure is not justified and directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the TDS was remitted within the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act and after examination, if it is found that any of the TDS was not remitted within the due date, corresponding expenses can be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had deducted TDS and deposited the same to the Central Government account on 08.04.2008. We find that the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the entire expenditure is not justified. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and hence, the grounds raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 20th of June, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 770 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ufacturing activities of the assessee are eligible for deduction provided u/s 10BA of the Act. The facts and issue involved in other appeals are exactly similar to the main appeal, except for the quantum of claim made u/s 10BA of the Act. Therefore, with similar reasoning, we allow these appeals by holding that all the assessees before us are eligible for deduction u/s 10BA of the Act. No other ground(s), if raised, were pressed by their respective Id. A.Rs. 13. in the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed on the common issue of allowability of deduction u/s 10BA of the Act whereas the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.’’ 3.4 So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 31-01-2013 in ITA Nos.36/Jodh/2011 and others in assessee's own case (supra), we allow this ground of the appeal of the assessee. 4.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 20-06-2013.)
-
2013 (6) TMI 769 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... f ₹ 15 lacs. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer accepted the repayment of loan of ₹ 15 lacs, meaning thereby he has accepted the genuineness of transaction, identity as well as capacity of the creditor namely Mr.Ishwar Adwani. The remaining loan amounting to ₹ 1.45 crores, which is the subject matter of appeal before us, was also repaid by the assessee in the succeeding financial year. Admittedly, the entire loan of ₹ 1.6 crores received through cheques and also repaid through cheques. Considering these conspicuous facts of the case and ratio of various decisions relied by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order, we are of the view that he has given the cogent reason for deleting the addition of ₹ 1.45 crores which was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act. We are therefore declined to interfere. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (6) TMI 768 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... e nature of examination conducted to reach to the above conclusion. Probably such a failure caused prejudice to the appellant at prima facie stage before him. 2. It is the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant shall prima facie satisfy the authority on the claims in respect of each input service embodied in page 88-89 of the appeal folder to seek relief on pre-deposit. 3. Considering that the materials available on record of learned Commissioner (A) needs testing at the prima facie stage, it is not proper to keep the appeal pending in Tribunal. Disposing the stay application, appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to reach to a prima facie conclusion looking to the merits of the case so as to pass an appropriate order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Finance Act, 1994. 4. In the result, the stay application is disposed of and the appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (A). (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 767 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ides agree that the issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011(23) STR 444 (Kar.) . Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 766 - ITAT MUMBAI
Benefit of deduction u/s. 10B - Held that:- The share has been transferred before March 2003, interim dividend has been received by the transferee which has also been verified from the bank statements of Altana Pharma AG. As the Assessing Officer himself has verified such clinching evidences and has accepted them in order, therefore, in our considerate view we do not find any reason to hold that there was a change in ownership to the detriment of the assessee company visa- vis section 10B(9) of the Act. Considering all the facts relating to transfer and the remand report, we hold that the substantial share holding was always with the assessee at the end of the financial year entitling it for the claim of exemption u/s. 10B(9) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (6) TMI 765 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act with reference to addition of disallowance under Section 43B, as the consequence of the disallowance and add back made by the Assessing Officer is an increase in the business profit of the assessee.
-
2013 (6) TMI 764 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... filed after the date of survey on the basis of any material found in the course of survey and disclosure made during the course of survey as had been provided as per Explanation-5 and Explanation-5A in respect of such return of income filed by the assessee after the date of search. In the absence of any such Explanation in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in our considered opinion, it cannot deemed that the assessee has concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in spite of this fact that the income in question is included by the assessee in the return of income itself although on the basis of adverse material found during the course of survey and amount declared in course of survey. 6. In the light of above discussion, we hold that penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable and, hence, we delete the same. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (6) TMI 763 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... The assessee has raised ground No.-1 in regard to the opportunity of being heard agitated before us and considering the submissions of either side where in the sole issue agitated before us is pertaining to granting of opportunity of being heard which admittedly has not been made available to the assessee we are inclined to accept the prayer of the assessee on a careful consideration of the legal position thereon. Accordingly the ground No.-1 raised by the assessee is allowed and the remaining grounds are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the issue is restored back to the file to the CIT(A) with the above direction. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 14th of June 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 762 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271AAA - absence of query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132(4) - Held that:- As during the course of search proceedings the authorized officer of the department had not raised any specific query regarding the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and on the contrary the assessee has tried to explain the earning of the undisclosed income in question in its reply during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and thereafter. Thus in absence of query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132 (4) about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation, the AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act specially when the offered undisclosed income has been accepted and due tax thereon has been paid by the assessee. We thus while setting aside orders of the authorities below in this regard direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271AAA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (6) TMI 761 - ITAT MUMBAI
Recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A - Held that:- We find that the direct expense in the form of Demat charges and STT on shares and also bank charges are debited in the capital account. The assessee has not claimed any of these direct expenses. A perusal of the capital account and the balance sheet exhibited at pages 14 & 15 of the Paper book show that the assessee has not claimed any expenses therefore, we do not find any reason for making any disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. However, to meet the ends of justice, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the exempt income.
-
2013 (6) TMI 760 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s demanded, the learned senior counsel is justified in pointing out that having regard to the nature of findings in Ext.P1, rendered following the decision in Pest Control India v. Union of India 75 STC 188 ; in the fitness of things, it would only be appropriate if the discretion is exercised to grant the appellant an order of stay of recovery of tax due under Ext.P6 during the pendency of the appeal. We also accede to the request of the learned Government Pleader that such appeal ought to be ordered to be considered and decided upon within a time frame. In the result, in modification of the impugned judgment, it is ordered that recovery of tax due under Ext.P6 will stand stayed until final disposal of Ext.P7 appeal, and the first appellate authority will decide upon such appeal, in accordance with law, following due procedure and rule of hearing, within a time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeal is ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (6) TMI 759 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ficer to compute the depreciation in the light of the material that may be filed by the taxpayer. Now since the issue being identical to that of assessment year 2008-09, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the order of this Tribunal dated 28-02-2013 in ITA No.320/Coch/2012 is equally applicable for the assessment years under consideration also. Therefore, by following the order of this Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 and for the reasons stated therein, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter compute the depreciation in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the taxpayer are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 758 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... s to change of opinion. We find that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India 320 ITR 561, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that after April 1st 1989. The Assessing Officer has power to reopen assessment provided, there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there was escapement income from the assessment. We respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court . We allowed the CO filed by the assessee. We therefore, held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. In view of the invalidity of the re-assessment proceeding for the year. In the result CO. is allowed. 3.4 In the result the Cross Objection is allowed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law in view of invalidity of re-assessment proceeding. We, therefore, did not decide department appeal in ITAT No.79/PNJ/2012, become infructuous for adjudication. 4. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/06/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 757 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lation to execution of contractual works. There is no element of sharing of risk or executing the work to term it as subcontract. On fact, it was found that since it is not a sub-contract, the question of invocation of provisions of Section 194C(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short, ‘the Act’), does not arise. The learned Tribunal noted its decision in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation 124 ITD 40 wherein it was held that mere hiring of trucks cannot be treated as subcontract unless the lorry owners involved themselves in carryout out any part of the work undertaken by the assessee by spending their time, energy and also by taking the risks associated with the main contract. When the factual position is such as above, non-application of law would automatically follows. The learned Tribunal has correctly did not apply the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 756 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal would be maintainable before the Bombay High Court. Section 269 defines the term High Court as to mean (as per clause (vi)) in relation to the union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu, the High Court at Bombay. Under the circumstances, tax appeal is dismissed, leaving it open for the revenue to pursue its remedies before the appropriate Forum.
-
2013 (6) TMI 755 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A u/r 8D - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that when the Assessing Officer had not made any disallowance u/s 14A on account of interest expenditure in the earlier year; therefore, in the absence of fresh investment during the year, no disallowance can be made on account of interest by applying the provisions of sec. 14A. Further, the assessee earned the interest income of ₹ 42,17,981/- against the interest & brokerage expenditure of`. 30,79,450/- . This net interest expenditure offered to tax by the assessee is ₹ 11,38,531/- which show that interest income is more than the interest expenditure and therefore, it cannot be presumed that borrowed fund was utilised for the purpose of making the investments in the shares. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance on account of administrative expenditure - Held that:- We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities below to the extent of disallowance on account of administrative expenditure. Accordingly, the disallowance ofRs.2,2,24,238/- made u/s 14A on account of administrative expenditure is upheld.
-
2013 (6) TMI 754 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... see and not against him. Similarly, if the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has decided a point in favour of the assessee, he cannot ignore that decision and take a contrary view, because that would equally prejudice the assessee." (Emphasis supplied) The CIT(A), having found that the Assessing Officer in the present case, has not strictly complied with the directions of the Tribunal, and has, without gathering any corroborative evidence, repeated the additions based on the very same material which the Tribunal held to be dumb documents and hence not reliable, has deleted the same. We find no infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in this behalf. 11. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. To sum up, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 28.06.2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 753 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the power to amend/rectify the order if the same is brought to the knowledge of Tribunal by an application by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. This means that Tribunal has no power to pass an order u/s 254(2) in case the application is moved by the assessee or Assessing Officer after four years from the date of the order of Tribunal. 6. In case before us, the original order was passed by the Tribunal on 22.12.2006 and the Miscellaneous Application has been filed on 30.7.2012 which is after four years from the date of order and therefore, the Tribunal has no power to pass any order on such application. In any case, Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal is consistently holding that M.A. against M.A. i.e. second M.A. is not possible because there is no such provision in the Act. Accordingly, we decline to pass any order and reject these Miscellaneous Applications. 7. In the result, Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th June, 2013.
............
|
