|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 585 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1302
... ...
... ... ..... Assessing Officer with reference to the books of account of M/s. Star Automobiles but the impugned difference was assessed in the hands of the assessee out of the bonafide error as the two cases are of same group. Accordingly, the addition made to the returned income on this count is not sustainable and hence, it is deleted. 23. We have considered the rival contentions and found that after calling the remand report from the Assessing Officer, ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) found that reconciliation statement was filed, according to which, there was no difference. The detailed findings recorded by ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has not been controverted by the department. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) resulting into deletion of Rs.4,46,649/-. 24. In the result, appeal filed by revenue and cross objection by assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... Income tax Act. Under the said provision, the Insurer is obliged to deduct the tax at source from the amount of interest paid by the Insurer to the claimant. The said amount has to be deposited with the Government of India as the income tax deducted at source. The Tribunal below has grossly erred in directing the Insurer to pay the said sum to the claimant. Learned advocate Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh has appeared for the respondent-claimant. He candidly admits that there is statutory liability upon the Insurer to deduct the tax at source from the amount of interest payable to the claimant. He also admits that the respondent claimant has filed the income tax return and has claimed refund of the aforesaid amount deducted by the Insurer. For the aforesaid reasons, this Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th December 2012 made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No. 111 of 1998 is quashed and set aside.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1300
... ...
... ... ..... has either been received or accrued to assessee in a previous year, the question of levying any income tax does not arise at all. Furthermore, mere wrong deduction of tax at source by contractee will not give right to the contractor to receive that income. In the instant case before us, the alleged amount of proforma invoice has neither been received nor accrued to the assessee during the relevant assessment year under consideration. Therefore, there is no justification in the action of CIT(A) for bringing to tax net such amount during the year under consideration. However, the Department is at liberty to tax such income in the year of actual receipt, in any subsequent year. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify and tax this income in the year of actual receipt. We direct accordingly. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1297
... ...
... ... ..... of the Revenue Authorities and he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the files of the AO for fresh examination of the issue. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the material placed before us. On hearing both the parties, we find merit in the Ld Counsel’s arguments. It is a fact that neither the AO nor the CIT (A) have really gone into the issue of existence of excess funds and have given categorical findings about this fact. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this issue should also be set aside to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro-products (supra) as well as the relevant law in force. Accordingly, issue no.2 is remanded and relevant conclusions of the revenue authorities are set aside. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 4.9.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1296
... ...
... ... ..... at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source is found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners are entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source in accordance with law. 10. Keeping in view of the observations made in Karnail Singh's, Sarti's and Kulwant Rai's cases (supra), it is held that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax returns and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. Accordingly both the writ petitions are disposed of. However, if any amount deducted at source is found to be in excess, the petitioners would be entitled to apply for refund thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1295
... ...
... ... ..... ue is reversed and this part of the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is allowed. 17. Ground no.2 relates to confirming of the addition for the provisions of the income tax recoverable from the customers amounting to Rs. 3,96,76,000/- for the purpose of computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. This issue is identical to the ground no.1 raised by the assessee vide appeal ITA No.7438/M/2011 (supra), which is adjudicated by us vide paras 5 and 6 of this order. In the assessee‟s appeal, we have decided the matter in favour of the Revenue by respectfully following the order of this Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the AY 2003-2004 reported in 142 ITD 251 (Mum) (supra). Therefore, following the same, the issue raised by the Revenue, vide ground no.2 of this appeal, is decided against the assessee. Accordingly, the ground no.2 is allowed. 18. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1294
... ...
... ... ..... nce of the TDS claimed can be done. So far as the CIT (A) relying on rule 37BA of IT Rules is concerned, we are of the view that in the first place the said rule is not applicable to the assessment year under dispute as it has been inserted into the statute by IT (Sixth Amendment) Rules 2009 with effect from 1-4-2009. Even if we go by the aforesaid rule, the Assessing Officer was required to give credit to the TDS in the corresponding assessment years wherein the income was so offered which also would have resulted in refund to the assessee. In aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that no disallowance of TDS can be made in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the entire TDS amount of Rs.55,22,932/- in the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT (A) by allowing the ground raised by the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 13-9-2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1293
... ...
... ... ..... rds charges for display of banners and right to use common area are from members who own commercial space in the complex Manipal Centre. The character of the receipts though can be termed as licence fee/rent are nevertheless charges paid by the members and to be used for the purpose for which the members got together viz., maintenance and convenient enjoyment of the North and South Block of Manipal Centre complex. In that view of the matter there is complete identity of the contributors and participators and the other two conditions for not taxing income on the ground of mutuality is also present. We are therefore of the view that the claim of the Assessee for its non-taxability has to be accepted. In our view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Club (supra) in our view has been wrongly extended to the aforesaid receipts also. We therefore hold that the aforesaid receipts are not taxable. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1291
... ...
... ... ..... , may at the worst cause loss of some revenue or income-tax payable by the individual assessee - On the other hand, if a contrary view is taken, it would leave the assessee totally at the mercy of the IT authorities inasmuch as the assessee has not been provided any remedy under the Act against non-decision - Moreover, the former view furthers the object and purpose of the statutory provision - Thus, the better interpretation would be to hold that the effect of non-consideration of the application for registration under s. 12A within the time fixed by s. 12AA(2) would be a deemed grant of registration.” 8. Respectfully following the precedent as above and also the legal provisions discussed above, we are of the opinion that the order of ld. CIT in this case is liable to be set aside and the assessee be granted deemed registration and approval as applied. 9. In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.09.2013)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1287
... ...
... ... ..... 2010 relevant to the AY. 2005-06 decided on 13-05-2011. The Tribunal in the said appeal of the assessee, held that assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit under tonnage tax scheme. Following the decision of the Tribunal, the CIT(Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee for AY. 2009-10. The ld. AR placed on record the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 13-05-2011 in ITA No. 356/Mds/2010 (supra). 5. We have heard the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below as well as the order of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal passed in assessee’s own case in appeal relevant to the AY. 2005-06. We find that the Tribunal in ITA No. 356/Mds/2010 (supra) has held that the assessee is eligible for claiming the benefit of tonnage tax scheme. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue and uphold the findings of the CIT(Appeals). Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 18th September, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1286
... ...
... ... ..... s elapsed in pursuing the legal remedies, the respondent-assessee would be within its rights to raise all the contentions, including this, before the revenue authorities at an appropriate time, if such need so arises; and the concerned authority may consider the same in accordance with law having regard to all the facts and circumstances. 14.00. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal succeeds and the same is, accordingly, partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside, remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), for deciding the Appeal afresh on affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides in respect of the additional evidence collected by it in exercise of powers under sub-rule (4) of Rule 46A. Needless to say that nothing is opined on the merits of the case by this Court and none of the observations made hereinabove shall, in any manner, prejudice the right of either of the parties in deciding the appeal afresh by the revenue authorities.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... was granted registration under section 12A. Even if the assessee’s receipts fall in the nature of trade, commerce or business activities, then also it needs to be examined whether these activities are directly related to promotion and carrying of sports activities as per the objects or not, if these activities are not in accordance with the objects on the activities of the trust are not genuine, then certainly registration granted earlier can be cancelled under section 12AA(3). Since these aspects have not been examined properly, therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned DIT and remanded back the same to his file for examining this issue afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th September 2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1283
... ...
... ... ..... cts in the case of Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal vs. ITO and others (supra) and in the case of Satnam Singh Kainth vs. ITO and others (supra), where detailed orders have been passed in the said cases. Since the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal vs. ITO and others (supra) and in the case of Satnam Singh Kainth vs. ITO and others (supra), therefore, our order in the case of Satnam Singh Kainth vs. ITO and others (supra) is identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal, which have been discussed in detail in our order in the case of Sh. Satnam Singh Kainth vs. ITO (supra). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed. In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 408(Asr)/2013 is dismissed. In the result, all the three appeals of different assesses in ITA Nos. 404(Asr)/2013, 406(Asr)/2013 & 408(Asr)/2013 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th Sept., 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1281
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A) noticed that while completing the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08, the said amount was part of total assessed income. The CIT(A) found the contention of the assessee to be correct and he therefore directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the amount of ₹ 62,19,510/- which was assessed in assessment year 2007-08, out of the total credit written-back in the current assessment year. 11. In the above background, the plea of the Revenue is on the same basis, as we have considered in the assessment year 2008-09 in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, following the parity of reasoning taken for assessment year 2008-09 on a similar issue in this year also, we find no substantive merit in the appeal of the Revenue. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2059/PN/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is also dismissed 13. Resultantly, both the captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1280
... ...
... ... ..... direct transfer of property to evade tax and the capital gain. Therefore, there was distribution of assets which enables the partners of the erstwhile partners of the firm to withdraw the value of the landed property at any point of time from the accounts of the company. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Alto Inter-Chem Industries (supra) is not applicable since the conditions laid down in section 47(xiii) of the Act are not complied with. The partners of the firm made an attempt to transfer the property by treating the value of the land as loan in the company. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority; the same is confirmed. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1275
... ...
... ... ..... that for exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Act the two conditions must be satisfied by the CIT i.e. (i) the order should be erroneous and (ii) it should also be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the assessment orders for both the years cannot be said to be erroneous merely because the CIT has not ITA Nos. 1709 & 1710/PN/2011, M/s. Mundra Steel & Alloy, Pune agreed with the view taken by the Assessing Officer on the Survey report of the DDIT (Inv.) and that itself would not give any jurisdiction to him u/s. 263 to set aside the assessment orders. We, therefore, hold that the assessment orders for both the assessment years passed by the Assessing Officer are not erroneous and hence, the power exercised by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act is bad in law. We, accordingly, quash the orders passed by the CIT for the A.Y₹ 2007-08 and 2008-09. 17. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 20-09-2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1274
... ...
... ... ..... o Calicut through individual carriers. This fact is unexplained by the assessee. In view of this unsatisfactory explanation offered by the assessee to bring ₹ 30 lakhs from Bangalore to Calicut through three different individuals, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessing officer has rightly disbelieved the statement made by five persons, who claim themselves that they have advanced money for purchase of jewelleries. As rightly submitted by the ld.DR, there is no occasion for a middleman to borrow money from assessee’s own brother and loan the same to the assessee for making investment in the gold jewellery. This kind of explanation clearly shows that the assessee is suppressing the material fact. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 05th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1269
... ...
... ... ..... Assessing Officer with a direction that enquiry should be carried out with the 8 parties referred to so as to confirm whether they have received the extra amount reflected by the assessee and also whether such extra amounts are towards purchase of land as reflected in the books of the assessee. 12. The CIT has directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh after conducting necessary enquiries. We are of the opinion that the CIT is justified, since the Order of the Assessing Officer does not mention any details and the order of assessment does not show any application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the CIT is right in exercising his power of revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act and directing the Assessing Officer to examine certain aspects thoroughly and decide afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1264
... ...
... ... ..... appeal will be heard on the questions of law as formulated in paragraph-V of the Memorandum of appeal on 23.09.2013.” 3. Today, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and they fairly state that we need not record reasons for the order that we propose to pass, and they have agreed for the following order a. The order dated 11.1.13 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, (for short the ‘Tribunal’) Bangalore, in ITA No.1416/Bang/2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh on all the issues except the issue of validity/question of re-opening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 1996-97. b. It is open to the assessee as well as the appellants to raise all contentions as may be available in law before the Tribunal. c. All contentions of the parties on all other issues, as aforementioned, are kept open. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1263
... ...
... ... ..... advancing amounts to other trusts. Further, the amounts advanced have never been returned though a long period of more than 15 years have elapsed from the first date of it being granted and has also not been returned till date and therefore it can be said to have gone out of the trust. In these facts of the case, we hold that the amount advanced by the Assessee trust to the 3 other trusts as loan, was in fact a diversion of corpus fund of the Assessee to the other trusts and was not in the nature of loans or advance. The diversion of corpus fund is a clear violation of the specific direction of the donors and also the applicable laws of the land. We further find that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of DIT(E) and thus the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13 - 09 - 2013.
........
|
