|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 981 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... n accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.46/PN/2012( A.Y. 2008-09) 10. After hearing both the sides we find the grounds raised by the assessee are identical to grounds of appeal in ITA No.45/PN/2012. We have already discussed the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (Supra). Following the same ratio, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open court on this the 5th day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 980 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... after relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors P. Ltd vs CIT 1997 224 ITR 677 (SC) and CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd 2009 319 ITR 306(SC) has held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well and accordingly has held that the said amendment is retrospective. It is not in dispute that the TDS on 1,42,24,794/- was deposited within the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,42,24,794/-. Thus, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 29. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 08th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 979 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- Merely because of some of the occasion, there were credit balance in the current accounts, will not disentitle assessee’s claim of interest on the fund borrowed for the purpose of business. The rate of interest on the unsecured loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared to the rate of interest on the funds borrowed from banks, in so far as borrowings from banks are always secured loan provided after taking collateral and other securities Bank also mortgage the immovable property of assessee against the loan. However, loan from friends are relatives are generally unsecured, therefore, terms and conditions vis-à-vis rate of interest on secured loans and unsecured loans are always different. In the immediately preceding year, the Assessing Officer has allowed 18% interest on some borrowings while framing assessment u/s 143(3). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance of interest.
Nature of income earned on sale of shares and securities - Held that:- There are so many other factors which are required to be considered while deciding the nature of income earned on such shares like volume and frequency of transaction, period of holding, past track record of assessee etc. . The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing that volume of transaction alone cannot lead to presumption that gain would be assessable as business income. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the volume and frequency of transaction, while deciding the nature of income earned on sale of shares and securities, which were held as investment. In the interest of justice, the matter is restored back to the file of A.O. for deciding afresh.
-
2013 (8) TMI 978 - ITAT MADRAS
Unexplained cash credit - Held that:- The sum received by the assessee from Shri O.G.Krishnam Raju has been shown as advance in the accounts of the assessee and reflected on the liability side of the balance sheet. The amount was kept as advance for the reason that the film was not released in the impugned previous year and therefore, the assessee could not give the exhibition rights to Shri O.G.Krishnam Raju during the previous year and as such, no income arose to the assessee during the impugned previous year. The film was released in the succeeding previous year and the exhibition rights were given in favour of Shri O.G.Krishnam Raju. At that point of time, the assessee transferred this advance to income account and finally offered the same for taxation as part of his income for the subsequent assessment year 2007-08. The Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) has clearly stated that the assessee has included this income in the computation of taxable income of the assessee for the subsequent assessment year. He has also made it clear that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, on which the Revenue has no grievance. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (8) TMI 974 - ITAT DELHI
Benefits of exemption u/s 11 &12 - addition of corpus donation to the returned income of the assessee trust u/s 68 on the ground of being genuineness of which remained unverified - Held that:- The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (2005 (2) TMI 84 - DELHI High Court) squarely covers the case of the assessee because assessee had provided list of donors and donations were found to be applied for charitable purposes. Since the above material findings of the learned CIT(A) regarding application of donations was for charitable purposes and furnishing of list of donors along with their identity by furnishing the amount through account payee cheques, their being PAN holders and their assessment to tax has not been rebutted by the revenue before the Tribunal, we do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate in this regard, merely because the assessee could not produce these donors before the Assessing Officer or they were not found at their given addresses during the proceeding before the authorities below. It is accordingly upheld. - Decided against revenue
-
2013 (8) TMI 973 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of turnover discount given to it’s associate company - Held that:- There is a finding of fact by ld.CIT(A) that sister-concern is also subjected to same rate of tax and there is no attempt of evading tax. Thus no addition required
Disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- From the assessment order, it is transpired that there was no disallowance of depreciation in this year and before ld.CIT(A) also, there was no ground against the disallowance of depreciation. It appears that this ground was wrongly raised, therefore the same is rejected.
Disallowance on account of depreciation of Car purchased on 31.03.2009 - Held that:- CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis that the AO has held on the surmises that there was no sufficient diesel in the new vehicle purchased on 31/03/2009 which could have been used for the business purpose, whereas the assessee has stated that dealer has provided reasonable quantity of free-diesel at the time of delivery and the car was used accordingly. After considering the facts and the submissions, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A). Since the finding of the Assessing Officer is based merely on conjectures and surmises that there was no sufficient diesel/petrol as provided by the dealer, we do not understand that how can AO determine that how much petrol was supplied to the assessee by the dealer without making any enquiry from the dealer. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue is hereby rejected.
-
2013 (8) TMI 972 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re shall be no order as to costs. 8. It is pleaded that 148 notice on the same facts having been quashed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’ own case in A.Y. 2003-04, the same is to be applied for this year also in assessee’s case. 9. Ld. DR supports the order of assessing officer. 10. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The contents of the notice, facts and circumstances for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 are same. Respectfully following the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgment in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04 we hold that the proceedings are bad in law. The reassessment for A.Y. 2004-05 is quashed. Since the reassessment is quashed, therefore, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross-objections become infructuous and hence dismissed accordingly. 11. In the result, revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objections stand dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 08-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 971 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ear. Besides this fact, it is also undisputed that the assessee got entangled in bank facilities available to him and was made to square up ₹ 246.98 lacs and ₹ 121.14 lacs. All these facts, along with all the figures were before the revenue authorities. It is certainly not a case of the revenue authorities that the assessee was a habitual defaulter or irresponsible assessee, or in the preceding years, the assessee was trying to play hide & seek with the department or any other authority or a continued default. 10. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to sustain the penalty, because, even the legislature has used the word “may” in the impugned section. 11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied at ₹ 7,99,160/- u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 970 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Assessability of sales tax subsidy received from the Government of Gujarat - Revenue receipt OR capital receipt - Held that:- Sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is revenue in nature.
We are in conformity with the submission of the assessee that the subsidy received by the assessee held to be revenue receipt, being linked to the business activity, is taxable in the hands of the assessee as business income. Reversing the order of the CIT (Appeals) we direct the Assessing Officer to include the subsidy received by the assessee as income from business. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (8) TMI 969 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) and so also the Tribunal both have considered the matter, in detail and finally arrived at a correct conclusion that the income declared by the assessee from the long-term capital gain by selling agricultural land disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of income was accepted by the assessing authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that there was an inaccurate particular of income that was made the basis for inflicting penalty upon the assessee in exercise of powers conferred u/S. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
-
2013 (8) TMI 968 - ITAT COCHIN
Higher rate of depreciation on the vehicles used for transporting assessee’s own goods - Held that:- The assessee is not engaged in the business of running the vehicles on hire. The facts prevailing in the decision rendered in the case of Kailash Chand Bagaria Vs. CIT and Another (2001 (4) TMI 80 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court ) wherein held held that the dominant purpose for which the assessee used the trucks has been found to be for his own business and hence the assessee is not entitled to higher rate of depreciation, is identical to the facts prevailing in the instant case. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the decision rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is not entitled for a higher rate of depreciation on the vehicles used in his own business. - Decided against assessee
-
2013 (8) TMI 967 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... enches in Vidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. Vs. JCIT, 83 TTJ 409 (Cal). We find that similar payment of sales incentive given to the dealers in the immediately preceding assessment year 2007-2008 was not treated as commission in scrutiny assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act. We find that the CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned speaking order on this issue. In these facts, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the AO was not justified in treating the payment of incentives to the dealers as well as to another distributor, as payment of commission liable to TDS under section 194H of the Act, and that provision of section 194H are not at all applicable on the facts of the case, and in deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal of the Revenue being without merit, is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (8) TMI 966 - ITAT AGRA
Bogus purchases - GP addition - Held that:- The departmental appeal has no merit on both the grounds of appeal. The AO made the addition by following the finding of fact brought out on record in preceding assessment year 2008-09. The ld. CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal of preceding assessment year 2008-09 deleted both the additions. It, therefore, appears that both the additions now challenged before us are identical which have been considered in detail in preceding assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, the facts being same, we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for preceding assessment year and dismiss the departmental appeal.
-
2013 (8) TMI 965 - ITAT DELHI
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAA - Undisclosed Income - Assessment u/s 153A post search and seizure u/s 132 - It was alleged that assessee has failed to specify and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and it has further failed to pay the tax together with interest in respect of the above undisclosed income. - HELD THAT;- In absence of specific query raised, the assessee is not expected to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and substantiate it, still he has specified the manner substantiation of which cannot be disputed in absence of any adverse finding on the manner explained by the assessee and accepted as such in the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. The authority were not justify in imposing the penalty of ₹ 80 lacs u/s 271 AAA of the Act, thus directed to be deleted.
Reference - Ashok Sharma and others vs. DCIT [2011 (12) TMI 541 - ITAT CUTTACK]
-
2013 (8) TMI 964 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and addition towards sundry creditors. As rightly reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Indwell Constructions vs. CIT (232 ITR 776) (AP) wherein held that no separate addition should be made towards business income once the Assessing Officer estimated the business income by rejecting the books of account. Being so, placing reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court (cited supra), we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. 5.7 The assessee also challenged initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order. This ground by the assessee is misconceived and preposterous and requires no adjudication as the assessee is at liberty to challenge penalty order independently. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 6. In the result, all the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and all the Revenue appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 963 - ITAT BANGALORE
Nature of expenditure - Held that:- Expenditure incurred after allowing depreciation at 10% by the AO cannot be categorized as capital in nature.
Addition on ‘speculative loss’ - Held that:- For the purpose of hedging the loss due to fluctuation in foreign exchange while implementing the export contracts, the assessee had entered into forward contract with banks. In some cases, the export could not be executed and the assessee had to pay certain charges to the bank and thereby incurred certain expenses. These expenses, the assessee claimed by way of expenditure towards business. We do not find that the transaction can be stated to be in speculation as to cover under sub-section (5) of section 43 of the Act
-
2013 (8) TMI 962 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... valent to 20 of the claim, be disallowed on roundsum basis. These two grounds are, accordingly, partly allowed." 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case the assessee incurred cash expenditure of ₹ 2,48,42,505 and the assessee recorded most of the payments as less than ₹ 20,000 in its books of account which are supported by self-made vouchers and not verifiable. So there is every chance of inflating the expenditure. Considering these facts, as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Transport Corporation of India (256 ITR 7012), we are inclined to disallow 15 of the amount ₹ 2,48,42,505 worked out at ₹ 37,26,375 towards disallowance. This ground in Revenue appeal is dismissed and the ground by the assessee in its CO is partly allowed. 15. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and assessee's CO is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 961 - ITAT PANAJI
Addition under section 14A r/w Rule 8D - Held that:- We do not find any whisper whatsoever which proves that the AO was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee in respect of expenditure which the Assessee claims to have incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income having regard to the accounts of the Assessee. The AO straightaway went on applying Rule 8D while, in the first instance, the AO should have determined whether the claim of the Assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure with regard to the Dividend income is correct or not and such determination must have been made having regard to the accounts of the Assessee on objective basis. It is only when the AO is not satisfied with the claim of the Assessee, the Legislature has empowered the AO to follow the method for calculating the disallowance as may be prescribed i.e. Rule 8D. The AO instead of discharging his obligation, straightaway applied Rule 8D and made disallowance. He has put the cart before the horse which is not permissible under law. The case of the Assessee, in our opinion, is covered by our aforesaid decision in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. JCIT (2013 (9) TMI 233 - ITAT PANAJI). Addition deleted - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of expenditure incurred on renovation of the temple - Held that:- It is not denied that transportation of the iron ore was not possible without the co-operation of the villagers as the movement of the trucks had to be through the village where the temple was located for which the Assessee has contributed the amount for renovation. The expenditure incurred for renovation of the temple is also not denied. For carrying on the business smoothly, it was necessary for Assessee to maintain cordial relation to ensure smooth movement of the trucks otherwise the Assessee would not have been able to transport the ore from the mines to the jetty for the purpose of the export. It would have affected the export earnings and income of the Assessee. The expenditure has been incurred, in our opinion, during the course of the business. Business expediency demands such expenditure to be incurred. The expenditure is neither a capital expenditure nor personal expenditure of the Assessee. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of CIT(A) while allowing this deduction.- Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of expenditure incurred on construction of new bridge - Held that:-It is a social obligation demanded by the local community which cannot be overlooked by the Assessee. No material or evidence was brought to our knowledge which may prove that the bridge belonged to the Assessee and it represents capital expenditure incurred by the Assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (8) TMI 959 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds on freight charges and Clearing & Forwarding charges - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that amount paid by the assessee to clearing and forwarding agent is merely reimbursement expenditure for which the agent has raised a separate bill for these expenditure. Wherever TDS was to be deducted has been deducted by agent and paid to Government account on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, assessee cannot be asked to deduct tax out of the same amount. For this purpose Ld. CIT(A) has also considered copy of Form No.16A, which reflected the deduction of tax by the agent. Ld. CIT(A) has also found that from the sample of Air waybill that Airlines had shown, the name of the assessee which had been reimbursed to the assessee by the agent and handling charges have been separately billed by the agent. Ld. CIT(A) has also found that circular in the present case was not applicable as there are two separate invoices, one issued in respect of reimbursement of charges and other for service charges of the agent. No contrary material has been brought on record to dislocate aforementioned findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
-
2013 (8) TMI 958 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- 'Reason to believe' does not mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence. It only means, the examination that is required to be made on the basis of information that the assessing officer has received and if he discovers or finds as satisfied that the taxable income has escaped assessment, suffice it to state that he had reason to believe that such income had escaped assessment.
Job work done by FFIPL for the petitioner, by itself and nothing more, cannot deprive the petitioner from claiming deduction under Sec.10B of the Act, is a pure question of fact that has to be decided based upon an enquiry. It is well settled law that it is for the authorities to lift the veil and ascertain the true nature of transaction that has taken place as between FFIPL and the petitioner., who claim to be sister-organizations, carrying on identical business. It is useful to notice that FFIPL could not make any further claims for deduction under Sec.10B of the Income Tax Act after the period, specified therein, whence the petitioner-company was incorporated and two years thereafter purchased the machinery of FFIPL disclosing the value of the old machinery was less than 20%. It is elsewhere said that tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the framework of law. However colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning.
The reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner to reject the objections of the petitioner in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07 cannot be said to be either arbitrary or irrational calling for interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India
............
|
