|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 515 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... ically created. It was confined only to deeming UTI a company and deeming the income from units as dividend. There were no specific provisions for deeming the units as shares. Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the view that units of UTI are not shares of companies. Though the said judgment had been rendered in the context of Explanation to section 73, therefore is also applicable to the present situation which involves the interpretation as to whether units can be considered as shares. In our view in the absence of any specific provision under the Act to deem the unit as shares, it could not be considered as shares of companies and, therefore, the provisions of Article 13 (5) (b) can not be applied in case of units. We agree with the findings of CIT(A) that provisions of Article 13(6) are applicable in case of units as per which the capital gain cannot be taxed in India. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly upheld. 8. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... ktiengesellchaf, Germany. This clearly indicates that M/s. Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellchaf, Germany has accepted the liability to be dealt with the provisions of section 172(7) of the Act. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer may, therefore, verify the position and take such action as may be warranted in law in terms of section 172(7) to ensure that the income of the assessee from the voyages does not escape assessment as per normal provisions of the Act. 6. In view of the foregoing, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed subject to the observations made above. 7. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessee is in support of the ld CIT(A)'s order, therefore the cross-objections of the assessee becomes infructuous and we dismiss it as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1110
... ...
... ... ..... f claim of deduction by filing revised return or disallowance of an expenditure due to difference of opinion did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We have further noted that learned CIT(A) has placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd. 272 ITR 323 (MP) for the legal proposition that where the assessee had surrendered the disputed items and paid tax thereon then it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. Resultantly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the assessee had made the impugned claim on the certificates which were furnished but not found to be false or incorrect, however, under bona fide impression; then the assessee should not be held guilty of concealment of income. The view taken by the learned CIT(A) is hereby approved. The grounds of both the assessment years of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... uble Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. The Revenue has also raised a question relating to levy of interest under Section 234B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This issue is covered against the Revenue in Director of Income Tax Vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated, (2011) 330 ITR 578. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the decision is pending reconsideration and judgment has been reserved. It is also stated that SLP against the said decision is pending. We are not framing any substantial question of law as far as deletion of interest under Section 234 B and C is concerned. However, in case of a favourable decision, it will be open for the Revenue to press the question at the time of final hearing. Filing of printed paper book is dispensed with. However, liberty is granted to the parties to file papers/documents, which were filed before the income-tax authorities/tribunal within 8 weeks. To be shown in the category of Regular Matters as per its turn.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1107
... ...
... ... ..... the light of our observations, in each of the grounds of the appeal taken, we do not find it necessary to get into the decisions and details/merits/ratios as decided in the cited cases, as filed in the paper books. ITA No. 7362/Mum/2005, AY 2001-02 ITA No. 7363/Mum/2005, AY 2002-03 43. Since the issues involved in these two assessment years are identical as that in assessment year 2000-01, in ITA No. 7361/Mum/2005. Following the decisions taken by us in the respective grounds in ITA No. 7361/Mum/2005, we follow the decisions taken in each of the grounds on the grounds of appeal, taken in these two appeals, i.e. assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 44. The appeals, as filed in assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are allowed. In the result ITA No. 7361/Mum/2005 for assessment year 2000-01 is allowed ITA No. 7362/Mum/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 is allowed ITA No. 7363/Mum/2005 for assessment year 2002-03 is allowed Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... with the same, the Revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal with the grounds of appeal reproduced elsewhere in this order. 25. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us the learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the grounds of appeal and relied on the order of the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated the stand of the Assessee as put forth before AO and CIT(A) and relied on the order of the CIT(A). 26. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee by following the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd., (supra). We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue on this issue are also dismissed. 24. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the end of hearing on 08.08.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1105
... ...
... ... ..... they were treated as revenue expenditures. Thus, reliance of the Assessing Officer on Assessment Year 1998-99 was wrong since the assessee had changed the method and calculated the consumption of tools and equipments on the basis of closing stock of items and the accounting method valued by the assessee also had not been disputed by the Department by bringing any material to the contrary. Moreover, reliance was also placed on judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Metalman Auto (P)Ltd. reported in 11 taxmann.com 51. 10. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly addressed the issue and with the change of method of accounting which was not disputed by the Department, the consumption of the tools and equipments has been rightly treated as revenue expenditure and thus, the Tribunal committed no error. No substantial question of law since arise in any of these appeals, they merit no consideration any further. Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... e) Fifthly, failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgement. (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act." 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. Accordingly, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, the MA filed by assessees is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1102
... ...
... ... ..... he addition to the extent of ₹ 1,00,000/- and balance addition is deleted. The A.O. is directed to make the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- only in the income declared by the assessee. 9. As regards, the Ground No.3, we find that since we sustained ₹ 1,00,000/- in the income declared by the assessee and directed A.O. to take the computation of total income on the basis of returned in which the assessee has already shown the interest income on the credit side of the profit and loss account, therefore, separate addition is not warranted. Therefore, the same is deleted. The A.O. is directed to compute the total income taking basis of return of income declared by the assessee and made addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- as discussed above. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 10. Ground No.4 is general nature requires no independence findings. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. (Order pronounced in the open court.)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1101
... ...
... ... ..... xistence of “sufficient cause” is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. “sufficient cause” must mean a cause beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section. A cause for delay which the party could have avoided by the exercise of the care and attention cannot be a sufficient cause. In other words, the Court must be able to say, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay was reasonable. A cause arising from the negligence of the party cannot be a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5”. 5. Viewed from the back ground of the judicial pronouncements, in our view, the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay cannot be taken as “sufficient cause”. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in limine, as unadmitted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 16-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1099
... ...
... ... ..... is framed in the name of nonexisting entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provision of section 292B. The framing of assessment against a non-existing entity / person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 12. Thus, we find that the assessment in this case is invalid on the basis of exposition by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. supra. Accordingly, the set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that assessment in this case was invalid. 13. Since, we have already held that re-assessment in this case was invalid, other grounds taken by the assessee are now of only academic interest. Hence, they are not being adjudicated. 14. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1098
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the decision of the case cited by the learned AR as well as the decision held in the case Vijay Proteins Pvt. Ltd., cited supra, it would be appropriate to disallow 25% of ₹ 12,73,423/- and not ₹ 12,73,423/- as held by the learned AO and (Rs.7,14,500/- 25% of ₹ 5,58,923/-) sustained by the learned CIT(A). We have arrived at this conclusion because from the facts of the case it is apparent that the quantitative figures inclusive of the bogus bill for ₹ 12,73,423/- have tallied. Thus, addition to the extent of 25% on the bogus bill claimed as expenditure ie., ₹ 12,73,423/- which works out to ₹ 3,18,355/- is sustained and the balance addition made by the revenue is deleted. Thus, both the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly disposed of in his favour. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14 -8-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... hakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv., Ms. Tanushree Sinha, Adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv. ORDER Permission is granted to the petitioners to file an application to add some more grounds in the special leave petitions. Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1095
... ...
... ... ..... irect Taxes permits and allows sales tax liability, which is converted into a loan to be set off in the year in which the liability is so converted and the Government order is issued. In the present case, the order was passed on March 24, 2003, when the conversion was allowed. We are not concerned and required to examine hypothetical question, whether an assessee is entitled to claim deduction in the year when the order is communicated or comes to his knowledge. The question/issue is left open. In the present case, the liability was so converted in the year in question. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 2. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1094
... ...
... ... ..... ced reliance on the assessment order whereas the learned counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. 3.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the learned Assessing Officer made disallowance of prior period expenses without appreciating that the liability in respect of these expenses was crystalised during the year. The learned first appellate authority has already discussed the facts and various decisions including from Hon’ble Apex Court/High Court and the Tribunal. On consideration of the facts available on record and the judicial pronouncements mentioned in the order of the learned CIT(A), we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) and affirm the same. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of learned counsel of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 20.8.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1092
... ...
... ... ..... Rules on account of administrative expenses. Admittedly, the assessee is not maintaining separate accounts in respect of its investment activity and in view thereof the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules are squarely applicable and disallowance is to be computed in accordance with the said provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules for working out disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard. However, the assessee is entitled to the set off of the amount surrendered at ₹ 6,06,977/-. In view thereof, ground Nos.8 to 8.4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 69. The ground No.9 raised by the assessee is against charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential. Hence ground of appeal No.9 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 70. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed Order pronounced in the open court on this 26t h day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1089
Unaccounted sale - Estimation of income - only profit element is liable to tax - Assessee engaged in business of construction of flats - was collecting unaccounted cash from the purchasers of the flats. - HELD THAT:- entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Out of entire undisclosed receipt of ₹ 62 lacs, profit of ₹ 26 lacs is taxable for securing the ends of justice.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1088
... ...
... ... ..... ble Supreme Court has held that nature and genuineness of the transaction and intention of the parties is to be considered. 5.2. The case law relied on by the CIT(A) of Smt. Ch. Mangayamma (supra) is not applicable as it decides the constitutional validity of section 40A(3) which is not the issue before us. 5.3. In our considered view, lower authorities have not alleged any tax evasion, deployment of black money and the transactions being duly recorded between the two independent proprietorship concerns of same assessee and in the absence of any allegation to the effect of tax evasion. The assessee has also demonstrated existence of business expediency as Godrej products distribution agreement necessitated such arrangement of transactions. In view of these facts, circumstances, section 40A(3) and case laws, we see no justification for the addition in question, which is deleted. 6. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 14-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1086
... ...
... ... ..... section as well. o p /o p In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this Court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.” o p /o p 4. Once the issue is decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax and the same was deposited on April, 2008 for the AY 2008-09 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (8) TMI 1085
... ...
... ... ..... imated addition. The facts, the evidence and the stand of both the parties are mutatis mutandis similar to that of the case of M/s. Prince Int Udhyog (as assessee above). Therefore, with similar reasoning we hold that the A.O. has to apply the rate declared by this assessee which is better than in the immediately past year to the declared sales. We don’t approve of the estimation in production which is baseless. The assessee has declared g.p. rate of 15.58% but the ld. CIT(A) has applied the g.p. rate of 20%. The assessee has declared a g.p. rate of 15.58% in this year as against g.p. rate of 15.29% declared in the last year. Thus, there is no occasion to make any further addition. Accordingly, we allow this appeal of the assessee. 5. To sum up ITA No. 226/Jodh/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 243/Jodh/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed and ITA No. 242/Jodh/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2013.
........
|
