|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1139
... ...
... ... ..... learned Tribunal are quoted hereunder “Thus in our opinion the reopening is merely change of opinion of the Assessing Officer and he should have tangible material for forming an opinion that there has been an escapement of income.” In view of the aforesaid fact finding, it is difficult for us to admit this appeal, as there is no element of law involved. Further, the learned Tribunal had taken a correct view that an audit opinion in regard to the application or interpretation of law cannot be treated as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act. This proposition of law has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax 119 ITR 996 (SC) and also in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lkucas TVS Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC) Therefore, nothing remains to be decided by us in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... (A). All the above creditors have accepted that they had advanced their respective credits to the assessee. They have also explained towards genuineness of their transaction and have also detailed their sources of these deposits. Sanctioning here and there being not explained to the hilt cannot be taken as a proof of ingenuinity of the transaction. In any case these amounts can be considered in the hands of the depositors as per the law. It would not be justify to dub them as ingenuine on account of required ingredients stretched too far on both sides. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned deletion and cannot allow this issue in the favour of the revenue. It was conveyed to the Bench that the assessee has not filed his appeal against sustained part of cash creditors. 7. In the result, this appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 78/Jodh/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 is dismissed. 8. To sum up both the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1137
... ...
... ... ..... ) held that the variation made by the Assessing Officer on this issue should be deleted and accordingly deleted the addition of ₹ 39,18,508/-. 22. The ld.D.R fairly conceded that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by various Benches of the Tribunal. 23. The ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the case laws relied upon by the assessee are at Sl No.7 to 9 of the index of paper book on case laws wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by various Benches of the Tribunal. They are - Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd vs ACIT 2012 26 Taxmann.com 96 (Chennai) Aurionpro Solutions Ltd vs Addl. CIT in I.T.A.No. 7872/Mum/2011 Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT in I.T.A No.5855/Del/2012. 24. In view of the above submission of the ld.D.R, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 25. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 30th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... t a case of lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer in ‘scrutiny’ to be a fit instance to invoke revision proceedings. As stated hereinabove, since the instant is also a case of no enquiry qua the nature of the land sold before finalization of the ‘regular’ assessment, we hold that the CIT has rightly invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for revising the impugned assessment. 10. So, far as the assessee’s argument that the land sold is ‘agriculture’ in view of the case law M.S. Srinivasa Naicker and Sherit Dyan (supra) is concerned, we find that the assessees therein had not obtained approval for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Therefore, they are distinguishable on facts and hardly help the cause of the assessee. So, we hold that CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 11. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 13th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) has rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the reopening of the assessments, on the ground of merit the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the assessee stating that there is no case of double deduction in the matter of depreciation, as held by the assessing authority. In fact, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has allowed the appeals filed by the assessee on merits of the issue. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ground raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessments under section 148 of the Act is just academic. It does not call for any independent adjudication. Therefore, we find that the appeals of the assessee are also liable to be dismissed. 9. In result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 6th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(Appeals) and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The only issue raised in appeal relates to provision of wage arrears amounting to ₹ 5.80 Crores allowed by the CIT(Appeals). We are of the considered opinion that the provision has been made in view of the Wage Settlement Agreement between the assessee and the trade unions before the Joint Labour Commissioner (Re-conciliation), Chennai on 31-08-2005. The provision has been created against the ascertained liability. The CIT(Appeals) has remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the same after verification. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the CIT(Appeals). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 7th August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... fully relevant to the facts of the case in hand, the action of A.O. in treating the expenditure made by the assessee on replacement of machineries as capital expenditure is upheld. However the assessee will be entitled to proportionate depreciation on the quantum of expenditure capitalized. This ground appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 19. On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that expenditure on replacement of autoconer machine is capital expenditure. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are rejected. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 21. To sum up, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.606/Mds/2013 is dismissed and that the assessee in ITA No.617/Mds/2013 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 30th day of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... sed and its substitution by a new order. What is mistake apparent on the face of the record or where does a mistake cease to be mere mistake, and become mistake apparent on the face of the record is rather difficult to define precisely, scientifically and with certainty. An element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature and it must be discernible from the facts of each case by judiciously trained mind. Mere existence of a mistake or error would not per se render the order amenable for rectification, but such a mistake must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.” 8. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the discussion held above and ratio of the decisions as cited above, we do not find any merit in the miscellaneous petition of the assessee and the same stands dismissed. 9. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 20th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... and computation.” 5.2 In view of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 9. Considering the above discussions and in view of the fact that the learned DR could not controvert the submission of the learned AR by any cogent material evidence, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation on good will amounting to ₹ 90,21,444/- and his order requires no interference by us. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal.” Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of our co-ordinate Bench, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1127
... ...
... ... ..... ty imposed in that case u/s 271B was deleted by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on this basis that when a person commits an offence by not maintaining the books of account as contemplated by section 44AA, the offence is complete and after that, there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB. It was held that on this reasoning, penalty imposed u/s 271B is erroneous and the same was deleted. In the present case also, it is admitted factual position that the assessee did not maintain the books as contemplated u/s 44AA. Hence, the facts are identical in the present case and we find no reason to take a contrary view in the present case. Hence, by respectfully following this judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, we delete the penalty. 9. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed. 10. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd., reported in 204 Taxman 82 fortify the view taken by CIT(A). Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal while deciding the appeals in the case of Sri G. Sai Babu and Smt. G. Sailaja made a clear observation that the amounts were paid to the sister concerns in a scheme of developing about 300 acres of land in a phased manner. Therefore, the amount paid by the assessee company to the sister concerns also is a business transaction and not a loan or advance. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Sri G. Sai Babu and Smt. G. Sailaja also the amount paid cannot be termed as deemed dividend. 11. The appeals filed by the department are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, ITA.No.1360/Hyd/2011 to 1363/Hyd/2011 of the assessee are allowed and ITA.No.1344/Hyd/2011 to 1347/Hyd/2011 of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.08.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1124
Accepting loans in cash - Section 269SS - Repayment of loans through Journal Entries - Penalty u/s 271D & 271E - Concept of Reasonability - Assessee had taken 3 loans exceeding the limits specified in section 269SS - HELD THAT:- "Reasonable cause" differs from case to case. A.O. need to reconsider the matter to check whether "reasonable cause" was there for such act of assessee.
Since there is no material on record to indicate the reasonable cause in respect of these loan transactions - In the converse situation, the Assessing Officer has every right to decide the fate of the assessee as per law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1123
... ...
... ... ..... essee has made these cash payments to M/s AVVNL are payments to a corporate entity of the Government of Rajasthan and has found it to be covered under the above mentioned rule. 4. After hearing both the sides, we have also found that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the payee and the genuineness of the payments. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kalyan Prasad 2011 51 DTR 191 Raj has held that when payments collected by Shri Kalyan Prasad Gupta on behalf of the State Government, Rule 6DD(b) comes to the rescue of the assessee against the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the given case also, the payments are found to have been made to the Government company and therefore, no such disallowances can be made u/s 40A(3) of theAct. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeals of the revenue. 5. In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1120
... ...
... ... ..... decision of Special Bench, freight expenses which have been deducted from export turnover should also be reduced from total turnover. The Revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Saksoft Ltd (supra) has not become final as the department has preferred an appeal u/s. 260A of the Act. The ld. DR has not been able to place on record any judgment contrary to the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Saksoft Ltd (supra). Filing of appeal against the order cannot preclude the assessee from the benefit which has already been granted to the other similarly situated assessees especially when the order has not been stayed by any Higher Court. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as it is devoid of merit. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 14th August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1119
... ...
... ... ..... term capital gain. 14. In ground No.3, the assessee has challenged the Orders of the revenue authorities in treating the agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources. On perusal of the Orders of the CIT(A), it is clear that she has held the agricultural income to be income from other sources mainly relying upon the reasoning that the land in question is not an agricultural land. However, in view of our finding while deciding ground No.2 and considering the fact that the assessee had regularly been showing income from agriculture in the return filed in the preceding assessment years, we do not find any reason to treat the income shown from agriculture as income from other sources. We, therefore, allow this ground raised by the assessee by holding that the income of ₹ 30,000/- shown by the assessee has to be treated as income from agriculture. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.08.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1118
... ...
... ... ..... d and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) as the issue dealt in the proceedings u/s 154 is a debatable issue, which by itself cannot be dealt u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard. 11. The assessee has filed the C.O. with a two days delay before us and the assessee has explained the reasons for filing the C.O with two days delay. After considering the explanation offered by the assessee, we admit the CO for adjudication. 12. As we have upheld the order of the CIT(A) while deciding the revenue appeal and the C.O. filed the assessee is in support of the order of the CIT(A), the C.O. becomes infructuous and, hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/08/2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... aking addition of ₹ 53,89,699/- by treating short term and long term capital gain shown by the assessee as business income of the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Indra Singh(supra) but the Ld. CIT(A) has totally ignored this fact while giving relief to the assessee. Though learned counsel of the assessee tried to distinguish the facts of assessee’s case with that of Supreme Court decision in the case of Sardar Indra Singh(surpa), we are of the considered opinion that this exercise should be done by him before Ld. CIT(A) as we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of Supreme Court decision in the case of Sardar Indra Singh(supra). This ground of revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 17. In the result revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1116
... ...
... ... ..... similar facts decided the identical issues in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and pleaded that the claim of the assessee may be allowed. The learned DR could not controvert the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Since we have decided identical issue in ground No.3 of the appeal herein above in Para 13 of this order in favour of the assessee, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, there raise no question not to follow the same. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee in its favour. 17. The fifth ground of appeal relating to levy of surcharge and interest u/s 234B of the Act being consequential, we hereby direct the AO to take decision in accordance with law. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23-08-2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... age/disallowance-advantages attached with the property. Since it is a case of estimation of fair market value, so many factors are there, which affect the estimation/valuation of such property. In the instant case before us, since the valuation arrived at by Stamp Duty Authority was excessive, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A for ascertaining/estimating the fair market value as on the date of transfer. On the basis of such estimation/value arrived at by the DVO, the capital gain on transfer of property is being ascertained. In the instant case, we are concerned with the correctness of estimation arrived at by the DVO in a reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is purely a question of fact. Now we analyze the advantages and disadvantages attached with the valuation of property in the instant case. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... o understand that the appeal was already disposed of ex-part. In these circumstances, we find that the delay was caused for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Accordingly, in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the above case, we condone the delay in filing this Restoration Petition before the Tribunal. The delay is condoned and the petition is admitted for hearing and adjudication. 6. Now, coming to the Restoration Petition, we find that the reasons already stated by the assessee support the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the ex-part order of the Tribunal dated 2nd November, 2007 is recalled and the appeal is restored on the rolls of the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal. 7. The Registry is directed to fix the date of hearing and issue the notice of hearing. 8. In result, this petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 23rd of August, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
